Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at|http: //books .google .com/I

51

i

|3

g^^S^z^-y „?^/^^,^ ^ X ;^

l»J^' "" ■■

^A

THE

DIVINE RULE

or

FAITH AND PRACTICB.

.4-

' * >-

>>**•

1.- '',

?

THE

DIYINE RULE

or

FAITH AND PRACTICE?

OB,

A DEFENCE OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

THAT

HOLY SCRIPTURE

BA0 BSEN SINCE THB TIMES OF THE APOtTLBS
THB SOLE DIVINB RULE OF FAITH AIID FSACTIOB TO THB OHVBCH,

AOAINST THB DANGEROUS BRROEt OF

THE AUTHORS OF THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES, AND

THE ROMANISTS,

A8» PARTIOULAELY, THAT THE RULE OF FAITH IS **lfAOE UP OF 80RIPTURB AND

IRADITION TOGETHER ;" &0.

IN WHICH ALSO THE DOCTRINES OF

The Apostolical Suooession, the Eucharistio Saorifioe, &c.

ARE FULLY DISCUSSED.

By WILLIAM GOODE, M, A.

OF TRINITY, COLLEOE, CAMBRIDGE; RECTOR OF ST. ANTHOUN, LONDON.

Heretici qaain ex Scripturis argauDtar.in accoMtionem conrertuntiir ipsarnm Scrip-
tararum, . . . quia varie sinl dicta, at quia non poasit ei his inveniri Veritas ab his qui
oetciant Traditiooem. Nod eoiio per litteras traditam iJlaro, sed per vivaro vocera.

Irenjbus.

a-^eyut tm fjut yryfdLfAfA»m.—Bk%\u

AvrtfffMK ucif «i Ayuu tuu Bwnwo^ni ypgj^du v^s nn tsc ctXJrSiMc dtratyytxuur. — Atua-

NACIUS.

1 see Dot how yon differ Trom that opinion which is the ground of all Papistry.
that is, that all thxngt necesaafy unto atUvaiiim are not bxpreskkd in the Scripturet . . .
There is noihinc necessary to eternal life which is not both commnnded and expressed
in the Scripture. I oi»uni it exprewed when it is either in manifesl words contained in
Scripture, or thereof gathered by necessary collefMion. — Arcubisuop Whitgipt.

We of the CHurch of England affirm thai the Scriptures ctmiaina complkte Rule of
Faith and Practice, and we reject every doctrine and precept as esMeniial to salvation,
or lobe obeyed as divine, which is not supported by their authoriiy.—BisHOP Tomline.

VOL. I.

PHILADELPHIA :
HERMAN HOOKER,

OOBRBR or rirTR and ORaSTNUT aTRIBTS.

1842.

]

t-

TO
THE MOST REV.

WILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,

THE RIGHT REV.

CHARLES JAMES, LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,

THIS WORK

IS MOST RBSPECTFCJLLr DEDICATED

BT

THEIR OBLIGED AlfD OBEDIENT SERVANT,

THE AUTHOR,

27,539

PREFACE.

The movement that has lately taken place in our Church
under the auspices of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times,
whatever may be the view taken of it, must be admitted to be
one of a very important kind. Whether for good or evil, the
degree of development it has already attained, amply shows
that its success must be attended with a great and thorough
change in the principles and practices of our Church in various
most important points.

That such would be the case, was for a long time studiously
concealed from public view. So much caution, indeed, was ex-
ercised in the earlier part of their career by the Tractators, that
to none but those who were SQmewhat acquainted with the con-
troversial writings of divines oti the points touched upon, so as
to see the full force and tendency of the terms used, was it ap-
parent whither they were going ; though to such, I may add, it
was abundantly evident. And the first intimation of it to the.
public mind was in the very seasonable publication of Mr.
Fronde's Hemains, a work which clearly and most opportunely
revealed the real spirit and viewd of ^he (to use Mr. Froude's
cfwn term) " conspirators" against the present order of things in
our Church. As time has advanced, arid the number of their
adherents increased, the reserve formerly practised has been
gradually thrown aside. Perhaps, indeed, their own views have
become more fixed and definite than 'when they commenced
their labours. And we are far from laying to their charge any
other concealment than such as they judged to be wise and pru-
dent for the inculcation of new and unpalataUe truths ; though
we may be pardoned for observing, that a more open course ap-
pears to us to be (to use a mjld term) much freer from objec-
tions.

>

VUI PREFACE.

It 18 now, tben, openly avowed, that the Artides, though ** it
is notorious that they were drawn up by Protestants and inUnd"
edfor the establishment qf Prdestantismf^^ are not to be interpreted
according to ** the known opinions of their framers,** nut in
what the Tractators are pleased to call a << Catholic'' sense,^
which interpretation we are informed << was intended to be ad-
missibie, though not that which their authors took themselves,'*
in order to ** comprehend those who did not go so far in Pro-
testantism as themselves ;"* though the Articles are said, in the
very title prefixed to them, to have been drawn up ** for the
avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing x>f
consent touching true religion ;" and were put forth in compli-
ance with the request of the lower House of Convocation,
<< that certain articles containing the principal grounds of the
Christian religion be set forth, as well to ddtermine the truth of
things this day in controversy y as also to show what errors are chic-
ly to be escheioed."* And the '^ Declaration" pi*efixed to tbe Arti-
cles, requiring them to be interpreted in the << literal apd gram-
matical sense," <^ sanctions'* such a mode of interpretation.^
That is, the ^< literal and grammatical sense" comprehends that
^^uncathoiic" and Protestant doctrine against which (he Tracta-
tors protest, and also that opposite ^^calhplic" doctrine which
they embrace. And this << catholic" doctrine is such as is. con-
sistent with the decrees of the Council of Irent.^ And the Decla-
ration, forbidding any person to << affix any new sense to any
article," " was^promulgated," we are told, **at a time when the
leading men of our Chlirch were especially noted for catholic
views."^ But surely, if the "literal and grammatical sense" of
the Articles comprehends so much as the Tractators suppose,
and men had all along subscribed the Articles with propriety,
though varying in their sentiments from the Protestantism of
Bishop Jewell,' to the " Catholicism" \Vhich squared with the
Decrees of the Council of Trent, it was rather a useless admo-
nition, for the wit of man could hardly devise a sense of the
Articles not to be found within such an extensive range as this.

And the very men, be it observed, who say that these Arti-
cles, carefully drawn up " for the establishment of Protestant-
ism," will bear meanings ranging from Protestantism to that
Anti-prpte^tantism that agrees with the decisions of the Coun-
cil of Trent, tell us, that in the writings of the Fathers, a re-
presentatipn of the orthodoi^ faith is to be found, so clearly and

> No. 90. p. 80. V 8 lb. p. 81. 3d edit. p. 83. » WUk. Cone br. 2iQ.
4 No. . 90, p. 80. 6 8«e Ui^ whole of No. 90.

« lb. p. 80.

7 The oppotition of which to the catbolicitm of the Tractatori may be judged
of by an article in tbe Bntiah Critic for July, 1841.

definitely delivered in the consentient testimony of all of ihem^
that so far from there being any uncertainty as to their meaning,
the orthodox faith as thus delivered is^^an obvious historical
ftct f from Which fiows the very convenient consequence, th$t
he who follows it ba^ all the benefit of infallibility without in«
earring the odium of claiitiing it^

Moreover, to '< talk of the * blessings of emancipation from
the Papal yoke,' ^ is to use a phrase of a <^ bold and u:fi>VTiruL
jtenour.*'' ^* To call the earlier reformers martyrs, is to beg the
question, which of course Protestants do not consider a question ;
lijlit which no one pu'etending to the name of Catholic can for a mO'
ment think of conceding to theni^ viz. whether that for which
these persons suffered w^re the < truth.'"* << Protestantism, in
it0 essence, and in all its bearings, is characteristically the reli-
gion of corrupt human nature,"^ ^* The Protestant tone of doc-
trine and thought is essentially aotichristian. ''* The reader will
observe, that the term used in these denunciations is no longer,
u at first, <<«itra>-Prote^tantism," but (with a candour which we
flhould. have been glad to have seen from the commencement)
<< Protestantism."

The present feelings and objects of the Tractators have been
eWarly set-forth by themselves in the follov^ng words. <<By
eUnging to th)D authority of the;Be reformers, as ic^dividuals,"
they say, <<are we not dealing unfairly both with Protestants
and other braBche».of the Catholic Church ? Are we not hold'
tug* out fake coUnm to the former^ and drawing them near us, only
in the end to be alienated from us more completely than ever ?
On the other han^dyare we not cutting oucselveR off from the latf
ter, (who are our natural allies,) by making common cause with
k SET OP Writers witH whom, in suoh measure as we have im-
bibed THE TRUE CATHOLIC SPIRIT, We\caN HAVE NO SORT OF STM-

pathv? Meanwhile, tcf the unprejudiced inquirers after truth
(a large and growing nt^norber) are we not, until we have shaken
offiuch auatUiariea as these, exhibiting a very distorted and unreal
representation of the Catholicism to which we desire to attract
them; holding before them a phantom which will elude their
grasp, a light whicl^ will cheat their pursuit ; unsettling their
early prepossessions, without affording a complete and satisfac-
tory equivalent; disquieting them in their present home, with-
out furnishing them even with a shelter ? This should be well
considered. It ought not to oe for nothing ; no, nor for anything
short of some i>ery vifal (ruth; some, truth not to be rejected

1 8e6 Newman's liect pp. Sl^, 6^ > Qrit. Grit. July, 1841.p.2.

9Ib.p. 1^ 4 lb. p. 27..

; *4b.p.29.

FSXFACE.

without fatal error, nor embraeed without radical change; that
persons of name and influence should venture upon the part of
^ecdesiasrtciU agitators ;* intrude upon the peace of the contented,
and raise doubts in the minds of the une6mplainihg; i7e;c the
Church ioith canntroversvy alarm , serious men, and interrupt the
established order of things ; set the ^father, against the san^ and
the mother against the daughter;^ and lead the taught to say, < I
have more understanding than my teacher.' All this has bbrii
^ne; and all this is worth hazardingin,an)atter of lifeand death;
much of it is predicted as the characteristic result, and therefore
the sure criterion, of the Truth. An object thus momentous we
believe to be the txNPROTESTANTiziNO (to use an offensive but for^^
cible.word) of the national Church; and accordingly we are ready
to endure^ however we may lament, the undeniable, and m
themselves disastrous, effects of the pending controversy. ....
fVe cannot stand where we arcy wt must go backxoards or forwards ;
and it, will surely he the latter, , It is ateiolutely necessary towards
the consistency of the system which certatih parties are labour-
ing to restore, that truth's should be clearly stated, which ks yet
have been but intimated, and others developed, which, are now
but in germ. And a^s we go on, we must ftsofioB more kuto

MORE FROM T:HB PJUIfCIPLBS. IF AlfV SOCH THERE BB, OP THE Elf«^

LI8H RRFORMATiOiV.''* ' Such is thc lauguag^ uow held by the
Tractators, in their oi-gao the British Critic* / . ^

Now if'by "we" in this passage thej meSD themselves^ it is
only what all who redMy understood their principles foresaw^
from the commencement of their career. But if by <* weV they
mean the English Church, then we trust that they will find that
there is much difference between the temporary jmpresaion pro*
duced by taking men by surj^nse under ,*\false coLurs^*^ and ^at
which isn>ade by the power of truth, accompanied by the bless-
ing of God. That the English .Church is to go ** forwards" with
the Tractators into all the false doctrines and mummeries of
Popery now openly. advocated by them, even to the primary
false principle, that the Church ought to assiinile the appearance
of one great spiritual monarchy^ with the Pope nt the head of
it,* is, we trust a prediction that has little probability of .being
realized.

It'is, if possible, still more painful to eoDtemplMe the fact,

, - ■'''•}'

' • . * •

» BriiUh Critic for Joly 1841, pp. 44, 46.

2 ** Of course, Pinion »f the whole Church antfer one vltibte govertiracnt ii* ab-
stractedly the most perfect ttate. We were so unit^, and now are not i\nd ihe
history of this greal suuggle for religiiiut independence . % is, in any case, the
record of the origin and progress of that deplorable tckhin. . . . We tsllcof the
* blessings of emandpstion from th^ f^spal^okp,* and use other phrasce of a like
hold and uxDUTiruL teaooc*'— Brit Crfo. Ibr July 184T, p. 2.

that tbaae remarks were published by those who profess the
'highest possible regard for the authority of their xpirittial rulers,
and not lon^ after doe of^ the heads af the party had, with many
professions of sobmisBnfn te'tlie wishes of his Diocesan, con-
sented to close the series of the" Tracts for the Times ;" while
be is here identified with S* ecctesiaaticBl agitators," reedy to use
erery efibrt, ^nd brave every difficulty, and throw (he Church
into eoofusioD, to the setting of "father against son, and mo-
ther agaiost daughter," for the purpose of ejecting the desijcn
of " unproUdantizing" the Ghtirch ! Such is the practical influ-
ence of their inordinate views of Church authority.

The reader will observe that in their use of the word •' Catho-
lic," the Tracta^rs are directly opposed to our Reformers. Our
Reformers were so far frpm thinking that Protestantism and
Catholicism were opposed to eaeh other, that one ground for
their supporting the farmer was, their conviction that it best de-
served the tide of the latter. Bishop Jewell believed that it
was the-Heformation that restored the " antient religion" (to use
'the reviewer's phrase) to our Church. And both he and, I be-
lievt I may say, all the more learned Reformers chimed the
name M Catholic," as belonging more peculiarly to (hemselvee,
than to. those who, both in the Western and Eastern Churches,
jtad cdrrupted the pure faith and worship of the primitive
Church. -The Tractators, therefore, like the Romanists, are at
issue with tbe Reform'em As to wkai U " Catholicism," and the
/'antieirt religion."' This-the reader ought carefully to bear in
mind, lest he be deceived, i as too many sulTer themselves to be,
by words and phraaes.< And lhe same cantior
to (be Tractators' repildiation of the charge c
teaet».' Their repudiatioii of it is grounded
rejection of certain more grosb impo^tlionsa
Church of Rome ; while, upon various mos
and leading features iti that vast system of n
they are altogether ia agreement with her: '
question, then, to be determined, before theii
charge can be of any practical use, viz. What is Romanism?
If, as our .Archbishop Whitgift tells us, their doclrine<on the
nile of faith is '^1^ ^(wn^ ^ aW PjiotsJr^y," their verbal dis-
claimer of Papiab-y is mere Idle talk. IJut unrortunately,tothe
ordinary reader, this equivocal use of terms throws the whole
subject into inextricable confusion. It ii very hard, he will say,
that those should be accused. of holding Romish -doctrines, who
have expressly repudiated and even abused Romanism. And is
it nqtipos^ desirable, that we^sbould hql^ "Catholic" doctrines
and the " antient religion ?" On those points, however, this is

zii ?]imfCE.

n.Qt the plaoe to enlargei Adtbey will more prbperiy ciune under
our consid^ation in a siibsequiept p^ge^. ^. ; . ;

With these facts and statementa.ti^fore bis eyes^ the iead^r
will not be surprised to learn that ifae Roi^anistd^ ar^ loudly
hailing the efibrts of theTractatdrsyaa directly teqdiog to. the
re-establishment of their doctrihesi aa the dobtrioes of the An-
glican Church^ " We may depend/' saya.Dr. Wiseman,* ** upon
a wining) an able, and a most ^calojua co-operation [i e. on the ^
part of the Tractators] with any effort #hicfa we may make to-:
wards bringing her [i. e. the Anglican Chgrch] into her n^^tful
position in catholic unity with the Holy S^e, and the Church^
of its obedience — in other words, with» the Church Catholic;*'
(p. 11.) And among other proofs of ihe, truth- of this, he re-
marks,— << It se^ns to me impossible to ireacjl the works of the
Oxford divines, and espeoially to fo,Uow them' chronologicalW,
without discovering a. daily Approach towards <;»ur holy Churcn,
both in doctrine and in affectionate feelingv 'Our saints, our
popes, h^ve become dear te. them by little and little ^ our rites
and ceremonies, our office:), nay, our very rubrics, are precious
in their eyes, fajtycAas ! beyond wha( nyiny of us Horuider them;
our monastic institutions, our charitable add educational provi-
sions, have become more and mor6 objects with thetn^of earnest >
study; and^verythih^^ i^ fine, that concerns our religion, deeply
interests their attention. . • ,. . Thdr admiration of our institM*
tionsand practices, and their regret at having lost tbem^ mani-
festly spring from c this value whacli th^ set upon, everything
Catholicf ; and tp suppose Ihemf (without an in'sinc^ty which
they- have given us no right to 'charge ih^m with,) to love the
parts of a system aiiid wi^ ,for thend, t^hile tHey would reiect the
root and only secure support, of them — the sy^stem itsel/--^is to
my mind revoltingly cbhtradJctqlr^." /pp, 13^14.) - "Further
proof of th^yiew wbic)[)J present^ fs^this ; that general dissatis-
faction at^the system of the Anglican Ghorch is dearly expressed
in the works of these auth6rd; it is not a blame east on one ar-
ticle or another, it is not blemish found in one practice, or a
Catholic want in a second, ^or a Protestant redkmdanoy in a third:
but there is an impatient sickness of the wkoki itis the weariness
of a man who carries a burthen, — it is not of any individual stick
of iis faggot that he complains,— ^it is the bundle which tires and
worries him • • . the Protestant spirit of the Article* in the
aggregate, and, their insupportable uncathc^icism in specific points,
the loss of ordinances, sacraments, and litupgiQai rites; theek-

1 A letter on Catholic Unity, to the Earl of ShreWfbtiry, by NictioYai, Biahop
of Mdipotamiia. ;

PREFACE. XII 1

tinction of the monastic and ascetic feeling am) observances ;
the decay of* awe, mystery, tenderness^ reverence, devotedness,
and other feelings which may be specially called Catholic' (Let-
ter to Dr Jelf, p. 26.); the miserable feeling of solitariness and
separation above describedi — these are but a portion of the
grievances whereof we meet complaints at every turn, the re-
moval of which would involve so thorough a change in the es-
Bcntial condition of the Anglican Church, as these writers must
feel would bring her within the sphere of attraction of all ab-
sorbing unity, and could not long withhold her from the^ em-
brace of its centre." (pp. 16, 17.)

Still further proof is justly found in the statements of Mr.
Warde, who deeply regrets our Church's ** present corruption
and degradation," hears with pain the words'^ pure and apos-
tolical" applied to her ; thinks that <* the mark of being Christ's
kingdom" *' is obscured and but faintly traced on the English
Church ;" and speaks of ** those sisters in other lands from wnom
she has been so long and so fatally dissevered^*^ and of her resto-
ration to ^< active communion with the rest of Christendom ;"
in terms, the meaning of which cannot be misunderstood, (pp.
18, 19.) As might be excepted, the endeavour to pervert our
Articles to a Tridentine sense, is eagerly caught at, as smoothing
the Way to a full and complete return to Popery. ** A still more
promising circumstance," he says, <' I think your lordship with
me will consider, the plan which the eventful Tract No. 90 has
pursued ; and in which Mr. Warde, Mr. Oakley, and even Dr*
Pusey, have agreed. I allude to the method of bringing their
doctrines into accordance with ours, by explanation. A foreign
priest has pointed out to us a valuable document for our conside-
ration,— *Bossuet's Reply to the Pope,' — when consulted on
the best method of re^conciling the followers of the Augsburg
Confession with the Holy See. • The learned Bishop observes,
that Providence had allowed so much Catholic truth to be pre-
served in that Confession, that full advantage should be taken of
the circumstance : that no retractions should be demanded, but
an explanation of the Confession in accordance with Catholic doc-
trines. Now, for such a method as this, the way is in part pre-
pared by the demon^^tration that such interpretation may be
given 01 the most difficult Articles, as will strip them of all con-
tradiction to the decrees of the Tridentine Synod." (p. 38.) This
instructive passage the reader will do well to ponder. Notwith-
standing <Uhe Protestant spirit of the Articles in the aggregate,
and their insupportable uncatholicism in specific points^" the magic
wand of an *< explanation" will ^* strip them of all cootradietion
to the decrees of the Tridentine Synod itself, and the statements
for which Rome has so often niade thousands pay the penalty

0

XIV PREFACE.

with their blood, are now found to be nothing more than what
are easily reconcilable with the statements of Trent itself.

It may not be known to many that a very similar attempt to
reconcile our Articles with the doctrines of the Romish Church
was made two centuries ago by an English convert to Popery,
named Christopher Davenport, but who is better known by his
Romish name of Francis a Sancta Clara. The work is entitled
« Deusy Natura, Gratia/'^ and was written for the purpose of
explaining many of the most important of the Thirty-nine Arti-
cles, so as to make them conformable to the Tridentine state-
ments : and he adds, at the end, a ^* paraphrastic exposition'* of
the rest of them, proceeding upon the same principles, wherein
he maintains that they need only a befitting gloss to reconcile
tbem all to good sound Popery. And for learning and ingenuity
our modern Reconciler is not to be compared to him. But, in
nil the most important points, the similarity between the two is
remarkable.

Thus, when it is said in Art xi. that << we are justified by
failth only," here, saith'Mr. Newman, "faith, as being the be-
ginning of perfect or justifying righteousness, is taken for what
It tends towards, or ultimately will be. It is said, by anticipa-
tion, to be that which it promises; just as one misht pay a la*
bourer his hire, before he began his work,'* &c. &c. (No. 90, 2d ed.
p. 13.) So Francis a Sancta Clara says that, << because faith is
the foundation of our justification and spiritual life,** therefore \u8»
tiflcation, and the salvation of man is attributed to faith." Jus-
tification is often attributed to faith ; " because faith is the gate
and foundation of it, and the whole spiritual structure."' '^ If
you say that justification is acquired through faith^ by means of
an application or apprehension of the merits or righteousness of
Christ, I think that it may bear a sound and Catholic sense ; be-
cause, in good truth, we, through faith, • • by believing the pro-
mises of God in Christ, or the merits of Christ's sufferings, by
praying, by loving, &c. at length obtain, through Christ, our
righteousness. This is their doctrine and ours ; nor do they give
more to faith than the Council of Trent, in the matter of justifi-
cation, if they are cautiously explained ; namely, in the way just
mentioned. But thepoint in dispute is, what faith we are to un-
derstand They themselves attribute it, not to that spe-
cial kind of faith, but to the faith of Christ, as we do. For, in
the Articles of the English Confession, no faith is specified, but

t Dent, Natura, Gratia. Siira Tractatoa de Prsdeatinatione, de Meritia et pec*
catorum rainiaaioiie, aea da JoatificatiODe et deniqoe de Saoctorani Invecationau
UU ad Iretinam fidei Catholic^ axamiDatur Confaaaio Anglicaoa, dec. Aceeaait
Mrapbraatica Ezpoai^o reHqfioruiii Articulorum ConfeMionia Aaglicfi. 2a. td.
Lagd. 1634. dto. ' a p. 192.

PBBFACB. XV

thc^ filith of which the Apostles everywhere speak. Therefore
there is no difference between us on this point But v^hat is
added in the Homily paretUheticaHy^ * J^his would be to attribute jtts^
t^cUion tQ a Iiabit or act in us,^ seems to deny inherent righteousness;
butt in trutb% nothing was less meuntf for it is. immediately added^
* But it is God who justifies.^ . • • • Behold, therefore, we clearly
and fully agree. "^

Again, on Art xii. on works before justification, which states
that *< works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspira-
tion of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God,'' and do not << make
men meet to receive grace, or deserve grace of congruity," &c, ;
Mr. Newman tells us that though it would be ^* Pelagianism" to
say that those who are in utter destitution of grace, can do any-
thing to gain justificatioo, yet there is <<an intermediate state"
between being ** in a state of Christian justification," and utterly
destitute of divine aid ; and that so, notwithstanding this Arti*
cle, << it is quite true that works done with divine aid, and in
faith, 6e/bre justification, do dispose men to receive the grace of
justification, — such were Cornelius's alms, fastings and prayers,
which led to his baptism."' So Francis a Sancta Clara says, that
it would, indeed, be the Pelagian heresy to say that, from the
acts of freewill, done without any aid from God, we could merit
justification of congruity ;' but, nevertheless, << with the aid of
the first bestowed grace preceding, we can, by seeking and
striving, obtain further aids, and in some way deserve of congruity
the Jirst habitual justifying grace^*'* 9ind thus the alms of Corne-
lius merited the faith of Christ ;' and that, in this Article, ^^ it
is manifest that such works only are excluded, as it regards
merit of congruity, with respect to our justification, as are done
before the faith of Christ ; nay, before the first actual grace, or the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit (as they say) ; since, therefore, the
exception proves the rule as it respects the opposite, as lawyers
say, it follows that other works, namely, those done from faith, can
in some measure lead to and deserve of congruity the grace of jus-
tification.*'*

Further on Art xxii. that *^the Romish doctrine concerning
purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of images
as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, &c."
Mr* Newman says, ^' the first remark that occurs on perusing
this Article is, that the doctrine objected to is ' the Romish doc-
trine.' . . Accordingly the /^rtmt^ire doctrine is not condemned
in it • . . Now there was a primitive doctrine on all these

1 pp. S02, 3.

2 pp. IS, 16.

3p. 152.

4 p. 159.

«p. 160.

•p. 170.

points, ftc."' "And further, by the 'Romish doctrine,' is not
meant the Tridentine statement ■ . ■ there are portions in Ihe
Tridentine statements on these subjects which the Article, far
from condemning, by anticipation approves as far as they
go.'" And what he considers condemned, is " the received doc-
trine" among Romanists, or " the doctrine of the Roman
■choois;" but how determined, he does not tel) us. So Francis
a Saocta Clara says of this Article, ■' The words, as they stand,
are doubtless very harsh. But it is to be observed tliat the force
of this Article is not directed against invocation of saints simply,
or in itself, as is evident, but the Rombh doctrine of Invoca-
tion." And to see what was meant by " the Romish doctrine,"
he says, we must observe how it is described by Protestants ;
and having (like Mr. Newman) extracted some honest repre-
sentations of it from Protestant writers, he adds, that it is not
to be wondered at that such a doctrine was condemned ; they
condemned it ; and he points to the Tridentine stale-
lOwing this. " The conclusion," he says, '* is, that
n Confession has determined nothing against the truth
; it has only exploded the impious and heathen doc-
r imputed to the Church."* " In the same wayevi-
by the same mode of speaking," he adds, "they
le same Article, not Purgatory, Indulgences, theado-
lages and relics^ in themselves, but as before, Ihe Ro-
mish doctrine on all these points ; that is, the doctrine falselyim-
puted to us ;"* proceeding lo show that the Article did not
condemn good sound Tridentine doctrine. " Here, therefore,"
he concludes, '* there will be peace altogether with the Anglican
Confession, if only all things are weighed as they deserve, with-
out parly spirit, and with only a regard to truth."*

These, with similar explanations of other Articles, occur in
the body of the work. In the " Paraphrastic Exposition of the
other Articles," at the end, the same course is adopted. We
will compare those on Art. xxviii. on Transubstantiation, and
Art. xxsi. on Masses.

"What is here opposed as ' Transubstantiation,'" says Mr.
Newman on Art xxviii., " is the shocking doctrine that ' the body
of Christ,' as the Article goes on to express it, is not ' given,
taken, and eaten after an heavenly and spiritual manner, but is
carnally pressed with the teeth ;* that it is a body or substance
of a certain extension, &c. . . . whereas we hold that the only
substance such is the bread which we see." (p. 47.) "In deny-
ing a ' mutalio panis et viiii,' " it is not " denying every kind of
change." (p. 31.) But it is " literally true" that " the consecrated

■ p. S3. I p. S4. * pp. 349, BO. « p. SB 1. 'p. 363.

bread ii Chrut'r body" (p* S6.) ; his body it ^mituai, ind hence
it may be " that Chrisl'g Body and Blood are localJy at God'a
right hand, yet really present here, — present here, but not here
io place — because they are spirit." (pp. 55, 6. See the whole of
pp. 47 — 53.) So Francis a Saneta Clara says that the authorsof
our Articles " only condemned, in thla Article, (he antient error
of the Capharnaites, namely, a carnal presence of Christ ; that
is, as if Christ was present here
was pressed by our teeth ;" and
such a change, is repugnant to S
affirms;" and that when the Art
and wine, it only denies such a
which " the Church" means, &.c
Again, on Art. xxxi. on Mat
thing can show more clearly the

are not written against the creed of {he Roman Church, but
against actual existing errors in it;" " the 'blasphemous fable' is
the teaching that masses are sacrifices for sin, ditUncI from the
aacrifice of Christ's death." " The Article before us neither
speaks against the Mass in itself, nor against its being an offer-
ing, though cotnmemorative, for the quick and the dead, for the
remission of sin." (pp. 59, 60, 63.) So Francis a SanctaClara
says, that "there is nothing here against the sacriEcea of the
Mass in themselves, but against the vulgar or common notion
respeciiog them, namely, that the priests in their sacrifices offer
Christ for the quick and the dead, for remission of sin and trans-
gression; so as to be able, by virtue of this sacrifice offered by
them, imUpendent- of the sacrifice of the cross, meritoriously to
procure for the people remission, &c." (p- 400.)

Such was the attempt made, two centuries ago, to reconcile
our Protestant Articles with the dogmas of Popery. But at that
time the nation had been but too recently emancipated from the
Papal yoke, and her traditional remembrances of Popery were
too fresh, to admit of her being so easily beguiled by fine words
and plausible phrases. And it so happens that we have Akch-
BlsaOF Laud's own testimony to his ha-Vinf, " ahsduiely denieiT'
permission to the author lo have the work printed in England, For,
It being one of tbe charges against him at his trial, that he had
" harboured and relieved divers Popish priests and Jesuits,
namely, one called Sancla Clara alias Davenport, a dangerous
person, and Franciscan Friar, who hath written a Popish and
seditious book, entitled i>eu9, AoJura, Gratia, &c., wherein the
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, established by
Act of Parliament, are much traduced and scandalized ; the said
Archbishop had divera conferenoes with him while he was in

X¥iti PRSFACB.

writing the said book,"' &C.9 the Archbishop tells us* that his re*
ply was, that the author of this work, haying come ^o hira to ask
his license for printing it, and having communicated to him its
substance, ** I found the scope of his book to be such as that the
Church of England would have little cause (0 thank him for U^ and
so absoliUdy denied it.**

The object which the Tractators and the Romanists have in
view in thus putting our Articles upon the rack to make them
consistent with their views, is, from the foregoing extracts, suf-
ficiently clear, namely, the more easy reduction of our Church,
as a whole, to its former union with the Romish See, when the
explanation, having served its purpose, would be, with the Ar-
ticles themselves, indignantly thrown overboard, to make way
for a truly '* Catholic" exposition of the faith dictated at Rome.
And then I suspect the poor remnant of the despised Protestants
might sigh in vain for a ^' Catholic*' confession suflSciently indul-
gent to include an << uncatholic'' meaning, thankful as they would
be to be indulged only with life. And if perchance the new
light of another age should enable some gifted Protestant to show
how easily Pope Pius's creed might be understood in a good
Protestant sense, let us hope that Rome also would see In a new
light her duty to her neighbour.

May God in his infinite mercy avert from us the evils which
threaten us.

It would be difficult to overrate the responsibility resting at
the present time upon the heads of our Church. There are
those within the Church who, so far from being afiectionately
attached to her doctrines and practices, think that the very
*^ mark of being Christ's kingdom" is ^* but faintly traced on
her,'* mourn over her Articles and services as framed by persons
of a thoroughly uncatholic spirit, and framed ^*for the establish^
ment^^ of a system which they believe to be even Antichristian,
<* the religion of corrupt human nature ;" and avow themselves
*^ ecclesiastical agitators," purposing to avail themselves of
every means of overturning that system, and ** unprotestant-
izing'* the Church. There are others who, having adopted, with
all the ardour of youth and inexperience, the same views, are
seeking to enter our Church, that they may add their efforts to
the accomplishment of the same end. All the oaths, declara-
tions, and subscriptions required by the Protestant restorers of
our Church as safeguards against the re-introduction of those

1 Canterbury'^ D«oni, or Prjnne'a Aecaunt of Trial of Archbiihop Laud, p.
.34* M quoted in Wood*e Ath. Oxon.
•> dee Archbifhop Laad*fl Hiatorj of his Tronblet, p. 835.

doctrines and practices to which these persons are attached,
form, in their view, no impediment to their either remaining or
seeking to become ministers of a FrolesUnt Church, for the
purpose of " un protestantizing" it ; the righteous end sanctify-
ing, I suppose, (according to the well-known " Catholic" doc-
trine) the unrighteous means. This ig no question, then, of
high or low Churchmanship, of Calvinism or Armiaiinism, of
this or that shade of doctrine, in which a latitude may justlj be
allowed; No, as the Tractators then
tmtfu" are concerned in the change t)
Church, even " maiien of life or deal)
say more, than earnestly to pray that
the rulers of our Church in this crisis
But it may be said, Surely there is
fur the Tractators have put forth thei
titled to the name of Anglicanism, e
trioes as those of the great majorii

divines, ever since the Reformation, and presented us with va-
rious" Catenas," containing extracts from the writings of those
divines in proof' of this. This is one of the most extraordinary
and painful features in the whole case. That such representa-
tions pervade the Tracts and works of the Tractators, is but too
true; and too true is it also, that upon the strength of such
statements they have gained a footing in our Protestant Church,
which they could never otherwise have obtained. One great
object, therefore, which I have kept in view in the following
work has been to show, that so far from having the supjport they
claim in the writings of our great divines, they are refuted and
opposed in the most decisive way by all the beat even of their
own chosen witnesses j and that their appeal to those writings as
in their favour is one of the most unaccountable, and painful,
and culpable (however unintentional) misrepresentations with
which history supplies us. The fact is, that almost the only
witnesses to whom ihey could properly refer as at all support-
ing their lyslem, ere a few individuals, such as Brett, Uieks,
JohnsoD, and others, forming a small and extreme section of a
small and extreme party in our Church, namely, the Nonjurors;
and even among these it would be difficult to find one who
agreed with their system as now developed. Their extracts
from the works of our divines generally will be found to be, for
the most part, general and loose and indefinite passages, whose
meaning depends altogether upon the context, and which are
applied by the Tractators in a sense which the views of the

' 8ce ailnct from Briiiili Critic, p. ii.-aboM.

XX P&BFACB.

writers^ gathered from their works as a whole, altogether repu-
diate.

Is this fair and ingenuous ? Was there not a more candid
course open to them ? Might they not have said. There is
much in the Church of Rngland that we love, much in the wri-
tings of her great divines that we approve ; but in the Articles
and services of the one, and in the writings of the other, there
are also various things of which we disapprove, conceiving them
to be opposed to antiquity. We will not quit her communion
till we see what effect a statement of our views may have upon
the minds of her members, though ultimately, if such changes
are not made, we shall be compelled to do so. For such a course
an apology might perhaps be found. It might not, indeed, have
gained for them so many adherents, but it would have been far
more likely to have produced a permanent effect than their pre-
sent conduct. In the place of this they have chosen to wire-
draw a Protestant confession of faith, so as to. make it appear to
support Anti-protestant views, to publish extracts from staunch
Protestant writers, to convert them, in the eye of the public,
into opponents of Protestant principles; in a word, to represent
our Church as being what it is not, in order to effect more easily
the change they desire to bring about in it from what it is.

Almost equally incorrect and fallacious are their references to
the early Fathers, of whose writings one might suppose, from
the language they have used, that their knowledge was most ac-
curate and extensive. I must be permitted to say, that the blun-
der Mr. Newman has made in the interpretation of a common
phrase in a passage of Athanasius, the meaning of that phrase
being a turning point in the bearing of many passages with rela-
tion to the present controversy,* shows a want of acquaintance
with the phraseology of the Fathers, which ought to make us
receive his cita,tions with considerable caution. Nor can I at all
account for various other erroneous representations and s^llcga-
tions. of passages from the Fathers, to some of which I give a
reference below, that the reader may at once see that there is
ground for the remark,') but upon the supposition that much
has been taken on trust from other and even Romish writers.
And if the heads of the party are not free from such errors, it is
not surprising that there are others among them still more deeply

iSeetoLLpp. 67— 69.

s See vol. i. pp. 61 — 69 ; also the remarks of Mr. Keble reapecting the Council
of Nice, compared with the alatemeuts of those from whom be has himself quoted,
noticed vol. ii. pp* 246 et seq. ; also the citations from Ohrysostom, prefixed to
Tract 34, in a sense which no one readtog the context could for a moment dream
of, noticed vol. ii. p. 834.

PSBFACB. ZXt

involved in them. Since public attention has been more direct-
ed to antiquity, we have been inundated with papers, and let-
ters, and remarks, especially in the periodical publications, lay-
ing down this or that doctrine with all the calm dignity of an
oracular response, as what everybody always everywhere in
the primitive Church from the beginning proclaimed and main-
tained with one consent, and showing nothing more than that
their authors need to go to school on the subject on which they
would fain be teachers of others. One might suppose, from the
tone of some of these writers, that all that has been done or
said in all past ages of the Church was to be ascertained without
the smallest di£Sculty or uncertainty, and could even be gathered
second-hand from the notices of a few modern divines. For my
own part, I freely confess to being in no small degree sceptical as
to the possibility of any man knowing what << everybody always
everywhere" in the primitive Church thought on any point ;
even from a careful perusal of the records of antiquity them-
selves that remain to us. Indeed, though 1 can quite conceive
a monk in his cell getting together the works of some few dozen
authors of great name, and fancying himself able hence to vouch
for the sentiments of *< everybody always everywhere," I feel
a di£Sculty in understanding how men of judgment and expe-
rience can allow themselves to be so deluded. But still less are
Such representations to be taken from those who have not even
made themselves acquainted with those sources of information
that are open to us. It would be amusing, were it a less im-
portant subject, to see the way in which, under the much-abused
name of ^* Catholicy" mistakes and corruptions are recommended
to public attention, almost as if our salvation depended upon
them. Statements, indeed, more uncatholic than some that the
Tractators themselves have made, — as for instance that of Dr.
Pusey, that *^ to the decisions of the Church Universal we owe
faith,"* — were never uttered. We appeal for proof to the wri-
tings of the early Church.

For myself I make no pretensions to any superior knowledge
of antiquity, nor desire to set up my own judgment of its ver-
dict as a standard for others to go by, but only to place before
the reader the testimonies upon which his conclusions should be
formed. And though it is almost impossible to suppose that
where so many references occur there should not be some er-
rors, I trust that the impartial reader will find that no labour has
been spared to avoid them, and that the representation given of
the sentiments of the Fathers is a fair, and, upon the whole, a
correct one.

> Letter to Biibop of Oxford, p. 53.

XXII FBXFAOB.

The 0ucoe88 of the Tractator« ha^ been to many a subject of
mirprise, and among others, as it ^ems, to themselves.^ For
my Qwn part, when I reflect upon the temporary success that
has often attended heresies and delusions of the most extrava-
gant nature^ I cannot participate in mi ch feelings. For the par-
tial and temporary success that they have met with in the incul-
cation of their doctrines there are, I think, beyond the fact of
novelty, several reasons, and I trust and believe many also that
may be assigned, for the hope that, under the Divine blessing,
that success may be but partial and temporary. Such trials from
internal and external foes are the Church's predicted portion in
this world, and the purer any Church is, the more may she ex-
pect that her great enemy will thus afflict her. If, however,
she be upon the whole found faithful to her God, such trials will
assuredly be overruled for her good ; and there is perhaps nothing
more inimical to her real welfare than a state of long and unin-
terrupted calm and prosperity.

One principal cause, then, of the temporary success of the move-
ment made by the Tractators, has evidently been, that it fell in
with the current of men's feelingsin the Church at the time. At
the period when they commenced their labours, the Church was
beset with dangers. The various sects that have separated them-
selves from her communion had {with one honourable excep-
tion) risen up against her with all the bitterness and jealousy of
a sordid spirit of worldly rivalry, and had avowed that nothing
would satisfy them but her complete overthrow as the National
Church, and the extinction of all her peculiar privileges. A
Ministry which, if not directly hostile, was made so by its de-
pendence upon the enemies, 6f the Church, a hostile House of
Commons, a country kept in agitation for party purposes, and
from various causes excited against all its constituted authorities
and antient institutions, combined to menace her welfare. Such
events had made all her friends anxious for her safety. That which
might perhaps have been a permissable relaxation of principle
in the conduct of her members towards the dissenters became so
no longer, when it was clearly seen that the leading object of
those dissenters o^ a body was to deprive the Church of ail her
peculiar privileges and opportunities for the promotion of Chris-
tianity throughout the land. Co-operation with bodies influenced
by such views was no longer an act of Christian charity, but a
direct breach of Christian duty. The ship was in a storm. Her
existence was at stake. Everything conspired to show the im-
portance, the necessity, of union, order, regularity, subordina-
tion, obedience to constituted authorities. In a word, the dan-

I Brit Grit for July, 1841, p. 28.

niEPACs. zxiii

%eT9 that beset the Church, and the conduct and nature of the
foes that assailed her, combined to lead all those who knew any*
thing of Church principles^ and had any regard for the Church,
to serious reflection. There was in consequence a healthy re«
action in favour of those principles. At this time, and under
these circumstances, the Tractators commenced their labours.
A more favourable moment could hardly have been found.
Events had so completely prepared the way for them, that in
the minds of many there was a strong predisposition in their fa-
vour. Their professions were those of warm friends of our Pro-
testant Church. All that they blamed was "ultra-Protestant-
ism." They claimed the sgpport of all our great divines with-
out exception. Antiquity was, beyond contradiction, wholly
with th^m. Their language was cautious and plausible, and full
of that self-confldence that is so influential with the popular
mind. Is it surprising, then, that they should have pleased
many ears, and gained many hearts, and that while they fell in
with the current of feeling created by events, they should have
succeeded in giving it an additional impetus in its own direction,
tending to carry it to an un'salutary extreme? So far, alas!
they have indeed succeeded, and thus in many cases have con-
verted a healthy reaction into one which threatens to carry away
its victims, and has indeed carried away several, into the bosom
of Rome itself. ,

The circumstances of the times had evidently much influence
upon the Tractators themselves in leading them to embrace the
views they have taken up.^ They saw that the influence of the
Church over the public mind was not such as it had been in for-
mer times, and might reasonably be expected to be. And, ap-
parently, the great problem which they thought they had to
solve was, how that influence might be restored. They have
not tinnaturally (whether wisely or not is another question)
found the hope of regaining it in the assertion of those Church-
principles which form the foundation of Popery. The abuses
caused by the liberty of conscience and free use of private judg*
ment, conceded by Protestanti>m, are to be cured by a re-estab-
lishment of the iron grasp with which popery holds its votaries
in subjection. And I must add, that their works bear such con-
stant and manifest traces of their having been imposed upon and
misled by Romish writers, that one cannot but fear that they
have suffered themselves to be prejudiced in favour of that sys-
tem of doctrine to which the circumstances of the times had given
them a favourable bias, before they had well studied the subject
in a way which alone could have entitled them to assume the

1 8m Newman*f Lect. p. 14. Kebl«*« Serin, pp. 6—7.

XXIT PSEFACB.

office of reformers and correctors of the Church. I am much
mistaken if their '^Catenas" do not show either an unfairness,
which I should be indeed pained at being obliged to charge them
withy or a great want of acquaintance even with the works of
our own great divines. And hence, instead of keeping within
the bounds of that sound moderation that has always character-
ized the Church of England, they have, while rejecting some of
the most offensive practices in the Romish church, adopted
almost all the doctrines and principles which have hitherto dis-
tinguished us as a body from that corrupt Church, and seem
gradually progressing to the reception of the whole system ;
witness the remarks that have been more than once published
by them in favour even of the fopperies of monkery itself. We
have Dr. Hook's authority for saying that the exti^eme of high
Church principles is Popery. We beg the reader to ask himself
whether those principles can well be carried further than they
are stretched in the works of the Tractators.

And it must be added, (and this is another reason for their suc-
cess,) that in the inculcation of their views they came upon
those who were generally^ and, as a body, unprepared by pre-
vious study for an impartial and judicious view of the subject.
The low state of ecclesiastical learning among us for many past
years is a truth so generally acknowledged and lamented, that it
would be a waste of words to offer either an apology or a proof
for the assertion. The consequences of such a want of infor-
mation could not fail tb be seen under such circumstances. Thd
slightest appearance of learning carried with it a weight which,
in other times, would hardly have been conceded to that which
had tenfold claims to it. And under the abused name of " catho-
lic,'* by the aid of Romish sophisms, and partial and inaccurate
citations from the Fathers, the corrupt doctrines and practices
of which our truly learned Reformers were, by God's blessing,
enabled to purge the Church, are urged upon us as veritable
parts of that Divine revelation delivered to the world by the
Apostles. And herein, be it observed, the Tractators are at is-
sue with those whose learning it would be idle to dispute, not
merely as to the foundation upon which their system rests, the
authority of patristical tradition, but as to the fact whether that
tradition, whatever its authority may be, is in their favour. Our
reformers contended that the name catholic, and the support of
the great body of the Fathers, belonged to that system of doc-
trine and practice which, from its opposition to the corruptions
of Romanism, was called Protestantism. And as to any of the
attempts hitherto made by the Tractators or their adherents to
pluck the laurels from the brows of the Reformers, and to show
the inaccuracy of their allegations from the Fathers, such as

that of the British Critic in the case of Jewel it reminds one
but of the puny efforts of a dwarf to espy holes in the arn)our
of a gtant.

We may, add also, as a still further reason for their success^
that their doctrines are such as will always, as lon^ as human
nature remains what it \»f attract many to them ; of the clergy,,
from the power they give them oyer the minds of ipen ; of the
laityi from their greater suitability to the notions and feelings
of the natural mind. To the clergy particularly such views
will always be attractive. The system of the Tractators is a
far more easy and simple one to work ; likely also to produqe
more extended and visible results. Only bring men to ac*
knowledge the authority thus claimed for the Church and the
Clergy, and their instrumentality in the work of human salva^
tion, and you wield a power over the minds both of the reli-
giousand the superstitious almost irresistible. But address a man
merely as. a witness for the truth, acknowledging your fallibili-
ty, and appealing to his judgment, <* I speak as to wise meni
judge ye what I say," and your personal influence oyer him is
not to be compared with that which exists ip the former case.
The truth is left to work its way by its own intrinsic power,
and faith is, as it ought to be, the result of a conviction of the
heart. But the cases where sucb conviction is wrought will be
much fewer than those in which a nominal adherence to the.
truth will be professed under the former system of teaching.
And even were it not so, the personal influence of the clergy
over their respective flocks in the two cases will not bear a com-
parison ; in the one case, the voice of the pastor is almost like
the voice of God himself, for an inspired messenger could hardly
demand greater deference $ in the other, the pastor himself
merges his own claims in that of the message^ ;and sends his
hearers to search for themselves in the book of Grod, whether
the things that he preaches unto them are so. It cannot be a
question, then, which system is naturally the most attractive to
the clergy. Nay, a zealous, earnest minister of Christ, who
desires nothing more than to promote the best interests of man*
kind, may be so attracted by the influence given by the former,
purposing to use that influence only for the good of his fellow*
creatures, as to have at once a. secret prejudice In its favouri
which blinds his eyes to the baselessnchs of the claims upon
which it rests.

All these causes have operated in favour of the .Tractators.

But there are at the same time not a few reasonsalso for hoping
that, in the mercy of God, their success may be but partial, and
temporary.

There are encoujraging symptoms of a preyalent desire among

c

zr?i FRsPAoa.

us to search into the matter, especially since the recent pabli«
cations of the Tractators have shown more fully their real
yiews and aims. Now it is impossible for this desire to be car^
ritd into effect without their being detected in such inconsis-
tencies, misrepresentations, and mistakes as will infallibly alter
their position very materially in the eyes of many who may
have been originally inclined to favour them. To some of
these I have already alluded, and it would be easy to add to the
list While I am writing, my eye lights upon one in a late
number of the British Critic (a number, by the way, which, for
its flippant impertinences and gross personalities upon men who
had the highest claims to at least respectful treatment, is un^
parallelled in such a work), made with all the coolness and confi-
dence of one who is uttering an incontrovertible truth. For
the sake of disparaging the Reformation, it is said, << Nothing
is more remarkable in the theology of the Reforming age (to
speak generally) than the deficiency of all writings of a devo-
tional, or even a practical cast*' (Brit Crit for July 1841, p. 3.)
Now the writer of this is either profoundly ignorant of the ec-
clesiastical literature of that period, or he has misrepresented it
tor the sake of his party, and in either case is deserving of no
little censure for thus misleading his reader^, of whom few
probably (speaking comparatively) would have the means of
judging of the truth of his remark. Considering the ch>iracter
of the period, and the comparatively limited number of origi-
nal works then published to what there are now, it is surprising
how many practical works issued from the pens of our reform-
ers and early divines, engaged as they were in the struggle with
Popery. These things give reason to hope that such writers
will ultimately find their level. Men do not like to be deceived,
especially by those who put forth high claims to wisdom and
learning. Their ^ quiet, self-complacent, supercilious Ian*
guage," as an able writer in the British Magazine has justly
dalled it,* will be doubly offensive when found to be wanting in
that which alone could afford the shadow of an apology for it
Their misrepresentations, in particular, of the sentiments of our
great divines, by a few loose and indefinite extracts from their
writings, though for a time they have (as might be expected)
deceived many, can ultimately only recoil upon themselves.
The disingenuousness also with which Articles of religioDy
drawn up by Protestant divines, <<for the establishment," as if
confessed, <<of Protestantism," are tortured to an Anliprotest-
ant sense, in order to enable Antiprotestants to retain their
places in our Church, is so utterly irreconcilable with those com*

> BriL Mag. for If aj, 1830, p. SIS*

Mibn prineiplM thit hold weiety together) that it eannotfiU
akimstelj, as indeed it has dott* already, to eitrange the infnds
of simple and upri|;ht Chriatlan men from such leaching. In-
deed it is impoasible not to see that it is a mere temporary etpc-
dient, which eannot long satisfy even those who have availed
themselves of it, a hastily eonstrueted refuge within the walls
of our Church for those who ire seeking to gain possession of
the citadel, and who suppose that they have better opportunities
to do so within the walls than without, but whose avowed oh-
jects make it cleai* that the present state of things cannot laat,
that one party or the other must give way. And when thia
becomes clearly appreciated by the Church at
not justly hope that many who have been att
standard while they were holding out, accordinj
confession, "false colours," will, when they C(
real state of the case, look upon them only as
that their very best defences, their " Catenas," ai
aions to learning and wisdom, antiquity and c;
only be sources of moral weakness to their o
tpore than anything el^e to its overthrow.

That such ■ controversy should have arisen ii
deeply to be regretted. The agitation of such q
sarily produces disunion. and party spirit, the
weakness, disorder, and ruin to any community
by them. The powers of the Church are thus
energies spent in useless, and worse than uselei
her friends are discouraged and perplexed, h<
umph ; her God is displeased, and her strength departs from hv.
How great the respon.iibility of those who have raised such a
strife within her, and made it a duty incumbent upon those who
have any regard for her preservation, to arm themselves against
their brethren for the defence of her very foundations ! But
when matters of such moment are at stake, when the question
is, whether the true Catholicism of our reformers is to give place
to a system of doctrine and practice altogether unsound, and
the corruptions from which oOr faith and worship have through
the mercy of God been purged, are to be reintroduced into our
Church, it would be culpable indeed to remain a neutral, a si-
lent, or an indifferent spectator. It becomes the duty of all to
do what maybe in their power to prevent such a result. The
zeal, and earnestness, and perseverance with which Popish
Tiews and principles are urged upon the public mind, under the
abused name of Catholicism, must be met with correspondent
efforts to unmask their unsoundness and dangerous tendency.
In a word, if the cause for which our martyrs laid down their
IiTea was one worthy of their blood, it ia the duty of those who

hflT«9ueceediei)tb the possession of pnvilcfrea w deirly purchased,
'to contend with eimilsr dcTOtedncas for iheir preservation aod
tnnsmission unimpired to th«ir children. And we may humbly
hope that Ho who out of evil ofl educeth good, may grant that
even thfs controversy may not be without its good efiects. The
real principles of our Church will be better known and sppre-
cisted, even among iu own members and ministers. The foun-
dation upon which it stands will, we are convinced, bear exami-
nation, and therefore, if God's blessing rest upon it, we fear not
■ for the result,

I am aware that it may be said, and with truth, that in the
-ily need no arguments to induce them to
ty, and are scarcely willinii; to pay defer-
dethan their own self-will. This I fully
at judicious works, calculated to show the
osilion of nrind, might, under the Divine
iai service to the community, both as it re-
!ind temporal interests. But I see no ree-
that uniuunded claims to their obedience
evil. Such doctrines hs those of our op-
calculated to do anything rather than be-
■ not, indeed, that to many minds they are
ible, and calculated to act as a remedy for
lal dissensiuns have produced in the Pro-
liberty obloinrd by the Reformation has
no doubt been in some cases abused. And the panacea for
the evils so caused may appear to many to be the re-establish-
ment of the iron tyranny under which the minds of men were
held previous to that event. I believe this to be a growing im-
pression in the minds of many both in this country and else-
where, and Rome is largely availing herself of it. But what-
ever may be in store for this or other countries as a temporary
dispensation,, as a punishment for their sins, we trust that the
aubstitution of a system in which "the Church" and "the
priest" are thrust almost into the place of God and Christ, for
the everlasting gospel, will be permitted to have but a very pre-
carious and temporary hold upon the minds of men. Of this
at least we are assured, that it is the duty of all who are inte-
rested in the real welfare of mankind to lay open the anti-chris-
tian nature and tendencies of such a system. Glad therefore as
we should have been in being engaged in urging the just claims
of antiquity and our Church to the deferential respect of man-
kind, and pointing but the evils and the guilt connected with
that wild and lawless spirit of independence of constituted au-
thorities now so prevalent, and painful as it is to have to point
out the blemishes rathw thao the «xcelleoei«f of the Churoh,

•od to i|»peBr in *ny degree ■■ the tpologiit of irreg»ln-itiM
igaipst which on other oecuioDsne should feel iti duty to pro-
teat, the unfounded claims to apirituil dominion set up bj the
Tractston on behalf of the clergy, make it more than equally a
duty to guard men igainit such falal errora. The clergy were
appointed, not to be either individually or collectively, as Mr.
Newman would have them, " the sovereign lord of conscience,"
but witnesses for the truth, not lorda over God's heritage, but
examples to the flock, not to be mediators between God and
men, but to point men to the one Mediator Christ Jesus.

The Romanists and the Tractators both tell us that divisioas
among Protestants are all owing to the free U
the sole authoritative rule of faith. Not to i
eharge of internal divisions, or to say that i
impositions upon the credulity of mankind
boasted of as the peace that exists among the
let me ask those who for so many eenturies ki
sealed book from the hands of the people, ser
their own consciences, how far the blame resi
heads. Would it be any matter for surprise i
barred from their just rights should, upon fi
free agents, run into extremes, and not find the
age and experience had enabled them to take
pasiionste view of things? Why, then, she
prised that the Church, upon her emancipatio
yoke, should for a long lime sufier from thees
the restoration of her liberty has ensnared ai
bers ? Such divisions, indeed, are now likely to exist mors of
less to the end. And woiild that the evils caused by such dir>>
•ions might lead those who sre aiding in their perpetuation, tor
serious refleetion upon the necessary consequences of their va-
garies, and to I remembrance of the words of our Divine MaK
ter, that a house divided against itself falleth ! But let the
blame be shared by those whose conduct has tended, more than
anything else, to produce snch a result. The unchristian usur<
pations of Popery have done more than any other cause that
can be named to destroy the unity of the Church, and subvarL
the moral influence of the clergy over the minds of men. Nor
let it ever be forgotten by the Bomanists, when complaining of
the divided state of the Protestant body, that they have them-
•elves, by the imposition of unchristian terms of communion^
Twidered themselves the most schismatieal portion of all Chris-
tmdom. When men are cast out of the Church by. a Diotre*
phes, (he brand of schism rests not upon the excommunicatedt
but upon the excommunicator.

For presenting to the public the fallowing work, jin apology

-enn hard)^, I tappoM, be needed. It whs impoesible to see the
deadly leaven of Popery inBinuating itself into the very vital*
of our Church, and that too under the venerable naniea of those
whose Uvea were spent in purginj; it out of her, or preserving
her from re-infection, without feeling ihat any warning (from
whatever quarter it might proceed] could not be miMimcd ; that
any effort, however it might fall short of doing full justice to
the subject, could not be misplaced. I trust I »hall not be mis-
understood by the amiable authors of the works upon which I
have here ventured to animadvert, when I say that it appeared
to me to be — certainly it is equivalent in its effects to — treason
in the camp. They have surrendered to Rome the principieM
it system of religious fraud and imposition is
>y give themselves out to be the opponents,
nents, of Romanism, though limiting their
of her most crying sins and practical abuses,
'ing the way for her by upholding those Jirtt
I, upon which her dominion over the minds
rests.

m of the work, I have spared neither lime
vouring to place before the reader the facts
I which his conclusions ought forest, and fur-
possession of the views of the best and most
irs upon the subject, both of the primitive
wn. That more might have been done in this
respect 1 freely own. But it was not composed in the ealm
quietude of the College, with every literary aid at hand, but (I
may say it emphatically) amidst the cares and trials of active
life. For the proper execution moreover of such a work many
things are required ; facilities of which the great body of the
parochial clergy are destitute. Those who know what oppor-
tanities such have of supplying themselves with the original
sources of information, will understand the difficulties to be en-
countered in the performance of such a task. I trust, however,
that the work will be found, upon the whole, to contain a fair
Und correct representation of the facts upon which the question
rests, and of the sentiments of those referred to j and that if
there are some slighter inaccuracies, they are such as will nst
be found to affect the main argument of the work,— a eircum-
stance which those who are in search of truth will appreciate,
when drawing their conclusions upon the points at issue.

And here t would, once for all, acknowledge my obligations
to those who hare laboured in the same field before me, for
many referenees to the Fathers, of which I have freely availed
myself, when I have found them, on viewing them in their con<
text, to afford good proof of that for which they are cited. Th*

nmwAcm. xixi

authorittes our earlier divines have adduced in their works
against the Romanists have no doubt enabled me to push my re-
searches much beyond what my own unassisted labours would
have enabled me to do. I may be permitted to say, however,
that I have endeavoured to explore the ground again with more
attention to the original sources of information than has usually
been paid to them here of late years, and trust that by so doing
I have been enabled to add somewhat to what has been done by
previous labourers in the same field.

Of the replies already published to the writings of the Trac-
tators, I have abstained almost wholly from the perusal; the
principal of them, indeed, I have not seen ; any similarity,
therefore, of views or statements is wholly accidental.

1 appear before the public as the advocate of no particular
party or system, but that of the Church of England itself. As
far as human infirmity (to the efiects of which no man ought to
shut his eyes) may permit the remark to be made, truth has been
my oply object, and I have followed where it appeared to lead
me. And but. for the establishment of great and important
truths, I trust I shall never be found upon the field of controversy.
It is one which nothing but a sense of duty should ever induce
me to enter.

In conclusion, I would express my sincere hope that ^here is
nothing in the tone, or spirit, or language of the following
work, of which my opponents can JQstly complain. If there is,
I most sincerely regret it. On such important points as are there
discussed, one cannot but feel warmly, and he who feels warmly
is apt to express himself warmly. I must beg pardon, however,
for saying, that there are some circumstances in the present con-
troversy which appear to me to justifv, and indeed to require^
strong language. There are many points in the system itself of
our opponents, which it is impossible too strongly to denounce
and reprobate. The means also by which that system has been
enforced and recommended, are such as to require grave repre-
hension. Our opponents appear to me like men who, think-
ing that a great change is needed in the views and practices
of their Church, endeavour, by explaining away its formularies,
and bringing forward a few isolated passages from the works of
some of its great divines, to persuade people that it is no change
mt all ; for while they admit and bewail the fact, that their sys-
tem has been nowhere and at no time put in practice in our
Church, they persist in calling it the Anglican system. They
must not then be surprised if this (however well intentioned) is
not considered plain and fair dealing. Nor can I help adding,
that the anonymous publications of the party more particularly
are^ many of them, characterized by a self-complacent spirit.

XXIU PBBTAOS,

add fcornful toM towards their opponents, such as ifitimite,
more plainly than words eould do, that the only possible reason
for men not holding the views of the Tractators must be sheer
ignorance ; a spirit and tone which, I will venture to say, the
degree of learning and research shown in those productions ren-
ders worse than ridiculous. These are circumstances that would
well justify strong language. We are far from disputing the

fuety or the learning of the Tractators, but (let us not conceal
rom ourselves the fact) neither can we dispute the piety or
learning of many others who have at various times misled por*
tions of the Church. Such recommendations, then, are wholly
insufficient as proofs of the truth of their doctrines. These evi-
dences are to be found with many different parties. The ques-
tion, therefore, must be determined by an impartial investiga-
tion, in which all prejudices derived from such sources must be
laid aside. To enable the reader to conduct such an inquiry, is
the object of the following work ; and thankful indeed shall I
be, if it shall tend to bring back into the old paths of our Church
any who have been misled, or preserve any who are in danger
of being misled, by the specious arguments and plausible state-
ments of the Tractators. I commend it humbly to His blessing
who alone can make it instrumental to the. good of His Church.

WILLIAM GOODE.

London^
November 20, 1841.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TO VOL. L

i H

9 ABM

PBtPAcm • y •.•••• fU

CHAPTER L

IlTTKODUCTOBT RlM AEKS .••..• 18— >S9

Principal Contentt,

All divine revelation deroandi oar implicit faith and obedience • IS

In a revelation of troths above our comprehension, demanding cor faith,

we are bound to require sufficient evidence of its divine origin, . 1S«— 14

This we must do individually ^ because we are to be judged aa indi-
viduals ........ 14 ^

Hence importance of ascertaining what divine revelations we possess, as
being. our rule of faith . * .... 14*— 15

Rule of faith defined ....... 16

The same our only divine role of practice . • . • 16 ' 'vi

Distinction between rule of faith and rule of practice ... 16 :.\

Belief of divine origin of any testimony professing to be divine revela-
tion must be on grounds satisfactory to reason . . . 16

Our present inquiry is, what is the divine rule of faith and practice • 16

The chief question in this inquiry on the present occasion is, whether we

have any certain witness of what the Apostles delivered orally . 17—18

"What is called <* tradition" put forward as such by the Tractators . 18

Observations respecting*the meaning and use of the word ^ tradition" 18— S3

Wide distinction to be drawn between the value of the testimony of the

Fathers as to doctrines and the oral teaching of the Apostles, and that '^

of their testimony to facts that came under their own immediate cogni-
zance ........ S3— S5

When speaking of Scripture as the sole Rule of faith, dec. we are speak-
ing in the strict sense of the terms, not as exicuding other things as ose-
M guidet to religious knowledge ; though much misrepresented on this
point • . . . . . . 26— S8

Our argument will be Almost wholly an a pottetiori irgument SS

Great object of work is, to demonstrate that Holy S^ptnrt is our sole and . '^

exchiaive Divine Role of &ith and practice . • . • S9— 80

1

.If," *i

XXZif TABLl OP COIITSIITS.

CHAPTER II.

ThI HOCTBlHKOr 1>B.FII8IT,MB. KBBLB, MR. NIWMAR ANH TBB*'TBACTfl
FOB TBI TIMK8," OB TBK SUBJBCT OP PATBimCAL TBADITIOH ABB
POINTS COHBICTID TBBBKWJTB„ WITH 80XK eBBIBAL OB»B«TATION0
OB TBBIB STATIX1BT8. ••.•.. 3l^»71

Piincipal Ctntentt,

Eztracto from Mr* Newman •..•,. 91^-34
Extracts from Mr. Keblo ...... 84—88

Extract from Tract 85 ...... 89—43

Summary of the doctrine of the Tractatora on the subject • 40^-41

Dr. Posey's doctrine on the subject . . . . . 41

Vanity of the distinctions attempted to be drawn between the doctrine of

the Tractators and that of the Romanists en the subject . 41^-48

Extract from Mr. Newman, illustrating the doctrine of the Tractators on

the kindred subjects of Church authority and private judgment . 48—61
Extracts from the Homilies on the subject .... 61 — 68

Remarkable inconnttency of the statements of the Tractators . . 68—64

Instances of misstatements and mistakes
Respecting the Article on the Church in the Creed . . . 64—56

Respecting the Tie ws of Plot estants .... 66-^61

Respecting the Creed called *< the Apostles* Creed*' . . 61^68

Respecting a passage of Athanasius, with remarks lllnstratiTe of his use '
of the word tradition ...... 68—65

Respecting another passage of Athanasius .... 65—67

Respecting a third passage of Athanasius, which, by a remarkable want
of acquaintance with the meaning of |he phrase ** the Evangelical
tradition," Mr. Newman has *quoted as supporting his views, but
which is altogether opposed to them, with proofis from the Fathers of
the meaning of the phrase ...... 67 — 69

Farther mistranslation of the same passage .... 69 — 70

Practical meaning of the Tractators when they speak of <* Catholic consent" 70
Extraordinary statements of the 1'ractators respecting the nature of the
Christian's faith and the evidence on which it rests . . • 70—71

CHAPTER IIL

OoMPABTSOR Ot TRB DOCTBtlTB XAIRTAIBBB IB TBB WORKS ABOTB VBB-
TIOBXn OB TBX BtBJXOT OP PATBIBTIOAI TBAVItlOB WITH TBAT Off
THB BOXISH CBUBCH .... 78 — 98

Principal contentt.

Comparison of the doctrine of the Tractators and that of the Romanists
on ihe Jirtt of the five propositions, in which the doctrine of the former
may be summed np ; namely, That consentient patristical tradition, or
*< cathotio conaent," is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in
religion, and consequently entitled, as to its substance, to equal respect
with the Holy Scriptures ...... 78—77

Comparison of the same on the tectnd proposition, namely. That such
tradition ib consequently a part of the divinely •revealed rale of faith and
praeticci . . . . , . . . . 77—78

TAMLM OF OOlfTBMTi. XXXT

WABM

Comparifloo of the noM on the third prepo«ition, namely, That it is a ne-
cetaary part of the divine role of faith and practice, on occoont of the
defectiveaeaa of Scripture for that (1) though it doea not rereal to ua
any fundamental articlea of faith or practice not noticed in Scripture,
Holy Scripture containing, that im, giving hintt or notice* of^ all the
fundamental articles of faith and practice, it is yet a neceaaary pait of
the dinne rale of &lth and practice aa the interpreter of Scripture, and
as giTing the fuU defelopment of many articlea, aome of which are fun*
damental, which are hut imperfeetly developed in Scripture ; and (3) it
is an important part of that rule, aa qonveying to ua Tarioua important
dirinely re?ealed doctrinea and rules no| eontalhed in Scripture. . 79 84

Comparison of the aame on the/otir/A proposition, namely. That patristi-
cal tradition is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice
hecauae of the obscurity of Scripture even in some of the fundamental
articlee, which makea Scripture insufficient to tench us even the funda-
meniala of faith and practice. . . . < . 84—85

Compariaon of the aame on }kk» fifth proposition, namely, That it if only
by the testimony of patristical tradition that we are assured of the in-
epiration of Scripture, what books are canonical, and the genuineneae
of what we receive aa auch ....••. 85—86

Remarkable aimilarity, and in aome parts coincidence, in the statements of
Mr. Newman on *' Tradition,*' and those of a celebrated JRoman Catho-
lic diaaertation on Irencus on the same subjeet . . . 86^90

Farther proofs of the identity of the doctrine of the Tractators and the
Romaoista from our own Dean Field, from a Roman Catholic speaker
at the Downaide Diacuasion, from Dr. Hawardine, dtc . . 90 — 98

CHAPTER IV.

TbAT TBVSV ABI VO WBITIVeS BXTAHT EXTITLKD TO THK KAMI Off

APOSTOLICAL TRADtTIOKf BVT TBB^OABOJIIOAL SOBtPTUBBf • 95—130

Principal eontento.

Introductory remarks ...•••. 95—96

That no preciae form of words was left by the Apostles as the Christian

creed . 96—108

That there waa no such definite summary of the chief articles of belief
given by the Apostles to the Christian Church as '* the Creed ;** and
that what is called *' the Apostles' Creed" is merely the aniient creed
of tike Church of Rome, and no more entitled to the name than any
other of the antient Creeds . . . • . 103 — 111

That which is called " the Apostles' Creed" gradually atUined its pre-
sent form, and that two at least of the Articles it now containa were
not inserted in it before the fourth century . . . 111—118

That the Creeda of the primitive Church were derived originally from

the Holy Scripturea .... . 118—133

Consequently, That none of the antient Creeda can be considered as an

Apostolical production .....* 123-^134

The queation discussed, Whether the Creed is a selection of the funda-
mental articles of the Christian faith • • • 134 — 139

What we ace to undersUnd by the name ** Rule of Faith," applied by

the early Fathers to the Creeds which they delivered t . • 130

XJV¥1 TABLB OF C0NTB1VT8.

rkBM

CHAPTER V.

TVAT FATBItTlCAL TKADITIOR It HOT ▲ *' PBACTICALLT IimLI.1-
BLB WITKUf OP TBI ORAL TXACBIXO OP TBI APOtTLBS, BOB BX-
ClITABLB AS A BITIBB IHPOBMABT.

Principal content9»

SionoN I.
Preliminary remarks ....... 131 — 138

Sectioii II.

No degree of consent, the knowledge or which is attainable, is worthy
of being considered a certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apos-
tles, or receivable as a divine informant . • . ' . 139 — 163

Sbction III.

The inadequacy of the records that remain to as of the primitive Church,
to be taken as anything like a sufficient and indubitable representation
of the faith of the whole Church ..... 153^177
From their paucity .,...• 154-*-156

From their being such only as the ruling party in the Church has

from time to time allowed to be preserved . . * 166—161

From the works of the Fathers having been mutilated and corrupted,

and works forged in their name .... 162—177

Section IV.

Th« witness of patristical tradition, even in the writings that have been
preserved, is of a discordant kind, and that even in fundamental
points . . . . . . . . 178— »88

The statements of Irencus, Tertullian, and Origen considered . 179 — 191
The witness of Patristical tradition, as it respects the divinity of the

Holy Spirit 19»— 196

Do. as to the doctrine of the divinity and generation of Christ . 196-»8S7
Do. as to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the
Father and the Son ...... 227—328

Do. as to the doctrines connected with the Nestorian, Eutychian, and

Pelagian errors ....... 228 — 280

Do. as to the doctrine of the intermediate state - . . . 230 — 236

Do. as to the sense of Scripture, ihelanced particularly in Prov. viii.

22. John X. 30. John xiv. 28. Phil. ii. 6, . , . 236—247

The Fathers at variance, even in points called by some of them Apos-
tolical traditions, instanced in (1) the doctrine of the Millennium ;
(2) the disputes respecting the time of observing Easter ; (3) the
question relating to the re*baptization of those baptized by heretics ;
(4) various minor points . . . . . 247 — 271

The Fathers at variance on various points, maintained by some of them

to be doctrines of " the Church" .... 271—276

The Fathers at variance, even in their Conciliar decisions . 276 — 279

Collateral proofs that there is no such consent as our opponents sup-
pose in the writings of the Fathers . 279—382

TABLB OF CONTEIfTS* ' XZXVU

FAGl

Liability to mieiake in fancying content of Fathers, thown by some
of the very cases referred to by our opponents as undoubted in*
stances of consent ...... 382 285

Concluding remarks '....• 285 — 288

SiCTIOK V.

Consent, even in the writings that remain to as, not to be expected S88—- 394

SlCTIOH VI.

The oncertainties and difficulties with which eren that small and partial
consent, which may sometimes be attainable, and is called by oar op-
ponents ** Catholic consent," is embarraased . . . 294 — 305

Sectioh vn.

The rival appeals made to patrislical tradition in antient times, on se-
veral of ^he most important points, grounded upon testimonies, many
of which we do not now possess, much reduce the value of any par-
tial consent we may find on such [K>ints, in the works that remain to
US ........ . 806—819

Sbgtiov YIII.

What the Tractators call « Catholic consent," is not treated by them-
selves, in many cases, as affording any sufficient proof of the doctrine
so supported ....... 319^-981

Sbotioh IX.

The doctrine of the Tractators founded upon suppositioBS which are

contradicted by facu ...... 332—343

SiCTIOlf X.

Reply to objections, and concluding remarks .... 344-— 356

CHAFrER VI.

Ov TBI emovvns oir which thb doctrihb miiTS that scBiPTumB is

TBB WORD OP eon ...... 359—403

Principal conientt.

An influential belief in this doctrine, the work of the Spirit of God 359—361
Patrislical tradition no sufficient proof of the doctrine of the inspiration
of Scripture ....... 862 — 365

A proof of the divine mission of oar Lord and his Apostles, will prove
that the Scriptures of the Apostles are to be viewed as the word of
God . . . . . . . 365—369

Nature of the proof for t^e genuineness and ineormpt state of the Apos-
tolical Scriptures ....... 369 — 375

Nature of the proof for their authenticity and credibility . . 375—376

Nature of the proof for their inspiration .... 376 — 381

The case of the three books written by Mark and Luke distinctly c on-

sidered ....*.. . 381 — 384

General remarks ...••. 385—393

Summary view of the argument for the inspiration of the New Testa-
ment ....... . 393—395

Extraordinary statements of Mr.I^fewman, and Tract 85, on this Subject,

discussed and controverted « . • . . 395—403

d

XXZ?1I1 TABLE OF COllTBlfTS.

CHAPTER Vn.
That holt mbiftubb ii ov% bolb ditiitilt^iibtkile]) bulb or faith

AHD FBACTICBi ANB 80LB IITPALLIBLE JUDOB OF CONTBOTBRtlBS IH
JtBLIGIOir, AND 18 COHtEaUBNTLT IK THB CBBDBHDA OF RBLrOIOX
THB BOLB AUTHOBITT WHICH BINDS THE COVICIBVCK TO BBLIBF IN
WHAT IT DBL1TBB8 ...... 404—494

Principal ctmtentt.

Preliminary remarlu, in which it it shown that this followa from what

has been already proved .... 404 — 409

On the true natore and extent of the truth, that Scripture ia the sole
divine Rule of faith and practice . . . . • 409 — 414

The additional arguments by which the view here taken may be establish-
ed, with a reply to the objections by which it is assailed . 414 — 464

(1) The arguments and objections derived from Scripture itself . 414 — 426

(2) The arguments and objections which may be derived from the
nature and character of the Scriptures of the New Testament, as it
respects the object for which they were written . . . 426 — 486

(3) The arguments and objections which may be derived' from other
general considerations ...... 486—464

On the true meaning and extent of the assertion, that Holy Scripture
is the sole infallible Judge of controversies respecting the truths of re-
velation ........ 464 — 466

A coQsideratioii of the arguments and objections which may be advanced

respecting this truth ...... 466 — 494

(1) From Scripture itself ..... 466—457

(2) From general considerations .... 467—494

CHAPTER I.

• •

i:rtBODtCTORt BfiKA&K8«

The word of God, however cdnveyed to us, binds the conscience
to the reception of whatever it may deliver. Every statenrtent
that has competent evidence "of Its OTVine origin, written or un-
written, demands our faith and obedience. There is no room in
•such -a case for doubt or inquiry. All that we have to consider
is, What is delivered ? nnd what is delivered is to be received
upon the affirmation 'of its Divine Axithor.

It is evident, then> that in thre case of a revelation that in-
^eludes fnuch that is myst^^rious and beyond the power of man
Fully to comprehend, this impRcit belief in the doctrines it re-
veals, involves a complete surrender of the mind to the truth so
;de1ivered, such a surrender as is due only to divine revelation,
and not to be given to anything that comes under that name
without sufficient evidence of its divine origin. The higher the
authority conceded to divine revelation, so much the more does
all that comes to us under such a designation demand our inves-
tigation as to the evidence for its divine origin. The more com**
pletely ne are left to lean upon the intrinsic value of the divine
testimony as the alone ground of our belief, from the mysterious*
ness of the truths revealed, the more are we bound to sift the
■evidence for its being a divine testimony.

For in such matters we are very easily misled. In the doc-
trines of religion we have no internal monitor able to discern
truth from error. And hence he who is willing to receive as
divine that which comes to him under such a name, but with in-
sufficient evidence of its divine origin, is at the mercy of every
impostor or enthusiast he may meet with.

Moreover, if God has given us ^ revelation, and requires of us
as individuals a reception of the truths and precepts he has re»
yealed for our everlasting salvation, then does it especially coii'-

VOL. I. B

14 IlfTBOOTTCTOBY BKHASX8.

cern us a intmduaU to look to the evidences of that which
comet to us with the professioD of beiog bb word, that we may
separate the wheat from the chaff, and not be misled in matters
aflecting our eternal interests^ This^ I sa j, it becomes us to do
as individuaUf because we are to be judged by God ifutividual"
ly ; and if we have possessed the opportunities of knowledge, it
will be no plea in bar of judgment that the church pr • boay to
which we belonged taught us error, for even death may be
awarded us under such circumstances, though our blood be re-
quired of those who have misled us. (See £zdciel iii. 18^ 20. iSlc.)

This our responsibility to Grod as individuab^ it is most im-
portant for us to keep in view, because it shows us the indispen-
sable necessity of ascertaining, to the satisfaction of our own
minds, that it is divine testimony upon which we are relying in
support of what we hold as the doctrines of Christianity. Then
only are we safe ; for if our reliance is placed upon anything else,
we immediately lay ourselves open to error. He who embraces
even a true dioctrine on insufficient grounds, exposes himself to
the admission of false doctrine on similar grounds. And it is
more easy and pleasant to build on a false ^undation than the
true one, for the former has no certain limits, which the latter
has. The whole superstructure of Romanism ' has been erected
ott a few false principles admitted as the foundation. And belief
founded upon a false fouhdation or insufficient grounds is general-
ly but weak and wavering ; and if it be shaken, true and false
doctrine fall together.

Hence it is of essential moment to us to ascertain what we
possess that can be called divine revelation on the subject of re-
ligion, for to it, whatever it may be, our rule of faith must be
limited.

We here take the phrase, ** Sule cffaithj'* it will be observed,
as referring only to "the faith once delivered to the saints," the
truths of Christianity, the Christian religion, which is its usual
meaning ki theology. Other matters may be objects of faith, as
-^to cite the most important example — that the Scriptures are
the word of Grod: but these do not enter into " the faith." And
I make the remark here, in order to put , the reader upon his
guard against the cavil that the Scripture is not the complete
rule of faith, because it does not testify of itself as a whole that it
is the word of God ; whereas this is a matter totally distinct from
that which we are considering, viz. whether " the faith," the

1 1 QM tiM words Romanifin rad Romanist, Poperj and Papist, without anj
wish to speak oi&nsivelj to those so designated, and see n^ reason why they who
prictically tdenttiy the Chareh of Rome with the Catholic Church, and make the
Pope Christ's Vicar, should be ollended it such tenns. I uie them merely for
the sake of bre?ity.

nmODVGTOST BIWABK^ 15

Christian religion, is not fully oontamed in (he Scriptnre, and
that the Scripture is our only divine informant respecting it

The rule of faiths then, may be briedy described as that which
God has delivered respecting religicm ; and if we inquire as to the
extent and limits of that rule to usj we have simply to determine
the exteti^ and limits of that which we have sufficient grounds
for believing to be divine revelation on the subject For the doc-
trines of religion, excepting those which are made manifest by the
works of Ood, can be known only by divine revelation : none but
God has a right to be heard in this matter. Faith in them, there*
fore, must have what it believes to be testimotiy that has a divine
source and authority as a foundation to rest upon. They are not
matters that arelo be proved by argument, but to be received
from God. Faith in a mathematical truth may be produced by
argument, and rests ultimately upon certain self-evident truths.
Faith in the inspiration, dx. of Scripture may rest upon grounds
which derive their force from approving themselves to human
reason. Faith in the doctrine of Christianity rests upon the word
of God. . The Christian religion is a revelation from God. Faith
(as connected with our present subject) is a belief in that revela-
tion, and a belief in it on the authority of Him who has revealed
it. And therefore the sole object of foith is that which is re-
vealed to us, be it more or less ; and any abstract inquiry as to
what must be the necessary extent of such revelation is both out
of place and irreverent, for all we have to do is thankfully to ac-
cept what God has given us.

Our rule of faiths therefore, is the whole of that testimony wt
pbssess respecting religion which we can prove to have a divine
source and authority. By that testimony our faith is to be dU
reeled and nuasured; and therefore it is properly called our
rule of faith«

I need hardly add, that the same testimony, being our only
divine testimony, must be our only dimne rule oi practice in our
religious duties ; though it must be observed that in the two cases
there is this difference, that while all the doctrines of religion
must have express divine testimony to rest upon, so that the rule
of faith is strictly limited to that which has such testimonTi inas-
much as no human witness on such a point is a sufficient founda-
tion for faith, there may, nevertheless, be reUgbus duties pre-
scribed by human authority under that power which God has
given to the church in his word for the decent ordering of his
service. Such at least is the doctrine of our church, and in this
she differs from nnost of the sects who have departed from her
communion ; which does not, however, prevent her from admit-
ting, that t|iose only are intrinsically necessary that are pre-
acribed by the divine rule itselfl And in the exercise of this

16 niTSODVCTOBT BSXAEKS.

power our church wiselj retains many of those rites and usages
which ecclesiastical tradition has handed down to us as having
been very generally observed in the church in prioiitive times,
thinking, as Hooker says» when speaking of those ^ traditions^
which oMr ehupch receives, ** that traditions ecclesiastical are not
rudely and in gross i^ be shaken ofi*, because Ihe inventors of
them'were men." *

In matters of Jaiih, therefore, the divine rule is our sole
authoritative rule; in mattersof practice there may be added to
those which are prescribed by the divine rule, by the authority
which Christ has kft with his church for the direction of its rites
and services, such as are necessary to^ the maintenaace of peace
and order.

Moreover, belief as W the divine origin of any testimony
claiming to be received a& a divine revelation, roust be grounded
upon evidence satisfactoinr to our reason. For faith> if it be
worth the naofie^ must have sufficient ground to rest upon. And
therefore, as faith in the truths delivered by what is acknowl-
edged to be divine revelation has the best of all possible grounds
to rest upon, even in those that are above human reason, viz*
the Divine Word, so belief that Scripture is a divine revelation
has ample evidence to rest upon^ such as commends itself to hu-
man reason^ and leaves him inexcusable who does not receive it
in that character.

This, then, is our present subject. We are intuiting where
ihe divine^ or divinely revealed^ rule f^ faith and practice^ it
to be found, and what are the extent and limits of that rule ;
that is, in fact, what are the extent and limits of that which we
have sufikient ground for considering to be divine revelation ?

In the future consideration of the subject we shall direct our
attention more particularly to that part of it which concerns the
rule of faith, that not only being the most important, but in fact
to a considerable extent including the other in its determination^
for in both cases the sole question to be determined is, what cer-
tain depository or infallible teacher of diyine revelation we pos-
sess ; adding, in the course of the inquiry, whatever may seem
requisite on the latter point.

It is admitted on all hands, by all wha bear the Christian
Bame, that the first and great revelation of the doctrines of Chris-
tianity was made by our Lord and bis apostles, and that what
they delivered on the subject of religion is ta be received as a
divine revelation.

I will venture to add that it has been the general beKef of the
best a^d purest part of the church in all ages, that our Lord and

1 £ccL Pol. book ▼. c 65.

nnvosvoToxT isxabks. 17

\m apostles conld almie be looked upon ai the certain and pub-
liclj accredited oi^ans through which anj divine revelation hai
been received by us o» the subject There are no doubt dissen-
tients to this doctrine. There bnve been in the church, at va-
rious titnea, enthusiasts, who have pretended to have receWed ad-
ditional revelations of divine truth. There are those who con-
sider that tbe decrees of certain councils of the church, at which
n great number of bishops hare been present, are to be received
as bejrond doubt the determinations of the HoIt Spirit, binding
tbe comcieace ot every man to belief as an iminediate divine
testiDftony. But these are notions with which on the present oc-
casion we ueed not concern ourselves. Our task lies with those
who embrace the notioD that, with the ezceptioD of course of
the Old Testament, all doctrines claiming our belief must be
traceable to o«r Lord and bis apostles.

TUi is held to be tbe case by most of tbe RtHuanists them-
selves. Thus the Jesuit Fisher, in his answer to White, says
~-*' Tlie church, even to the world's end, must be founded on the
apostles, and believe nothingai matter ef faith besides that which
was delivered of them." (Rejoinder to White, p. 51.) And
tbe same is stated in the strongest terns by Holden.'

We have, then, to determine the limits of the divtoe revelation
we can ascertain to have come down to

Here, aenin, it is generally admitte
record of this revelation is to be found ii

But it cannot be denied that when th
ing to men that divine revelation with n
they delivered it by word of mouth as
that have come down to us, and that tbe;
and aftewards penned the writing they
tion, then, for our deter mi nation is this,

record or witness of their oraf teaching, such as can be receiveil
bj m as a divine revelation inpplementary to, and interpretative
of, tbe writiun tfaey have left us.

This is, in few words, the question we are now about to dift-
cuss.

A small party has lately arisen in the Church of England wbfr
have, with the Romanists, asserted the affirmative of this ^tte»-
tion, and maintain that we have, in tbe works of those wbo came
afier the apostles, a certain record in many points of the sub'
stance of their oral teaching, and that such is tbe doctrine of the
primitive Fathers, and of the Church of England. We main-
tain the negative, and maintain our view to be that of most, to
say the least, of the primitive Fathers, aul ef the Chweh of

■DiT. fid. Aiiatji.lib.i.c 6, lect iii. } X,p. es. Ptrk IT67.

18 INTBODUCTOBT KBMABKS.

£ngIaDd to which we belongs and which we venenite apd revere
as the apostolical church of thk country. This, I taj, is the
main question we have to discuss here, though, as will readily
be conceived) there are other important questions connected witD
it, and arising out of it^ which necessarily enter into the discus-
sion.

This iupposed supplementary record of inspired teaching is>
called by the somewhat loose and indefinite name of iwodiiion, or
sometimes aposioUcal tradition, a name which is very calculated
to mislead the uninitiated reader, who is ready to suppose that
he who refused to receive ''apostolical tradition" must be want*
ing in the respect due to the apostles. Nay, the charge is made
by those from whom one might least have expected it. We shall
therefore make a few remarks upon the word tradition before
we proceed further; in ord^r to show the diverse and arbitrary
senses, in which it is used by theologians, and remove, if possible,
the difficulties thus created in the way of the general reader.

This word literally means only a delivery, or thing delivered,
from one person to another, and that in any way; so. that it i»
equally applicable to what is delivered in writing as to that which
is delivered orally as Bellarmine himself states,^ and so it is used
in the Scripture ; a and also by the Fathers. »■

fiut at other times it is used by the Fathers/ as well as modern
writers, to signify that which was delivered orally , m contra^
distinction to what was delivered by writing.

It has also been used to signify a report that has passed through

1 Noinen traditioni* generate est, et tignificat omnem. dottrinam tiye ecHptam
eive non scriptam 9ui> ab uno communicatur alteri. Bklli^eii .. De^ verb. Dei lib ..
iv. c. 2.

2 *' Hold the traditieni- (tsk irap^/bm) which ye have been tavght, whether
hy word, or our epittle.** % These, ii. 16.

3 TbQs Gregory Nyssen uses the wor<3a» **the evangelical and apostolical tradi-
tions,** (tutyyiKuiauc ti ku etTor^tjuMe irtptJtt9%rti) to express the books of the
New Testament. De Yirg. c. li. ed. 1619, torn. ii. p. 579. So Tertnllian, after
referring to various passages of the New Testament which Marcion wished to ex-
punge, says, ** Believe what is delivered (tiadited).*' Crede qyod traditura est. De
carne Christi, c. ii. ed. 1664. p. 308; and so elsewhere he says, **An et traditio
niti 9cripta non debeat recipi." (De Coc^ o. iii. ib. pvlOl.) So Hippolytus the
Martyr, after having quoted various passages from the New Testament, and point-
ed them out as amply sufiicient to teach the troth he watf inculcating, says, **Let
us therefore, my dear brethren, believe acoording to the tradiHon of the apot*^
tirtt (jwtT* T"? ir^fdiio-if «rw Aircff^oKm)" Coott. Noet. §. IT. ed. Fabr, vol,
ii. p. 18. Many others might be added ; but we-shajl have occasion to refer to
this point again. ,

* TftF » TM £xiiMpr<« Wi^XAy/uLPmf 4cyfjia.rv9 %*t nMfvyfMnm^ *rt /uir lit mt tyy^*^u
i'JxTKtxiAt %x^fAt9t Tat ^ <K TMc rm KiTWTiKm WMfniofimt iuJjednra i/utm » fAv^^fm
irtLfitft^t/jii^au Basil, M. Pe 8pir. 8. c. 27. ed. Bened^ vol. iii. p. 64.

Tafjoftf yft^iit^ *ttt 0f » w*fti'.au irtftihmtf ei vyot AverroKoi. Epimuv. Advw
her. in h»r. 61. ed. Petav. vol« i. p. 611.

INTBODVerORT 1B1CASKS. 19

several bands from one to another of that which was delivered
orally by its first author ;^ and this is the sense — a sort of arbi-
trary technical sense — in which it is used by our opponents, and
is indeed in common use, to signify a report coming to us
through the Fathers of what was delivered orally by the apos-
tles.

It is ako often used to signify that which was fir9t delivered
by the early church, and does not trace its origin to the apos-
tles, that is, in ritual matters, sometimes alone and sometimes
with the word " ecclesiastical" attached to it ; and hence the
tefm '< apostolical tradition" has been used to distinguish that
which claimed an apostolical origin from that which professed
to originate with others; but the distinction is not usually ob»
served, for this '^apostolical tradition" has been called, and
more correctly, both by ancient and modern authors, ecclesiasti-
cal or patristical tradition, as we shall show presently; and in-
deed, the phrase '< apostolical tradition" is seldom used by the
ancients in the technical sense of the word '* tradition" just
mentioned, but generally to signify the apostolical epistles.

It has also been used b^ modern writers to signify the mode
of conveyance by which a doctrine or rite so made known to us
has been brought down."

This variety of signification necessarily creates much con-
fusion, and occasions many difficulties to the general reader, and
has enabled the Romanists and our opponents to avail themselves
of many passages of the Fathers, as if they were favourable to
their views, which in fact are not so, but the contrary.

When modern writers, however, speak of " tradition^^ in re-
ference to doctrine, it is usually meant to refer to that which
purports or is claimed to be the substance of the oral teaching
of the apostles conveyed to us through those wh» came after
them. The word, when used in reference to doctrine, is limited
to the teaching of the apostles, because it is generally agreed,
that it is from them only that the doctrines of Christianity can
be received. But when applied to rites and ceremonies, it is
often taken (as we have just intimated) to include the patristical
report of the ordinances of the primitive church, as it appears to
be in our d4th Article, where it is said, that it " is not necessary
that traditions and ceremonies be in all places 000 and utterly

> U seems to be nsed in this sense by Irensos, when be stySf '^ Bvenit iUque,
neque scripturis jam neque traditioni consentire eos." Adt. her. lib. iiL c. 2. p.
200 ed. Grab.

2 The Greeks generally used tbe word i'mhyrt, to denote the mode of convey'
ance in such a case, and w^^aJ^atc only for the thing delivered, as in the follow-
ing passage of Epiphanian, mf A^cfroxiiMc ^apx/ootoi? Ar vc ii*^6X>K t^t if*^( irttMt'
x»9a/uir. Adv. H»r. in bsr. 33. ed. Petav. toI. i. p. 222.

so

like/' &c* wbere the wfaola Article evideBtiy ahows that the word
it used to signiTy chiefly, if not aoletyy ecclesiastical rites derived
from aocieot ecclesiastical sanction.

The next question^ then, to be considered is how this oral
apostolical tradition is supposed to be ascertainable. Our op-
ponents refer us to the consentient teaching of the Fathers, or
what thej call the catholic consent of ike early churchy so that
in (Hct, strictly speakingf what they call ^' tradition,^ *' apos-
tolical tradition," k patristical tradition^ or at best thepatris^
ileal report of oral apostolical tradition.

Such testimony they think could not exist in favour of a doc-
trine or interpretation, unless that doctrine or interpretation had
been delivered by the apostiesy whether or not it be directly at*
tributed to the oral teaching of the apostles by those who deliver
it. And thus ** tradition," <' apostolical tradition," and ^ catho-
lic consent,'' are with them /7rac/tca/fy convertible terms. Such
at least is the ground upon which they generally argue, though,
as we shall show hereailer, they are sometimes forced into con-
cessions not quite consistent with this view.

In this agree with them (as we shall see hereafter) the princi-
pal divines of the Church of Rome, though there have, no doubt,
been some in that church who have held it to be in possession of
a body of apostolical teaching, some of which may never have
been written, communicated orally by its pastors from one to
another through successive ages, so as not to be tied down to
what the Fathers have delivered, and which its priests deliver to
the people in every age as far as they may see fit ; but the for-
mer is the ground taken by the more learned divines of that
church, who always refer us to the Fathers for proof of what
they pretend to derive from the oral teaching of the apostles.

It would therefore, as it appears to me, obviate much confu-
sion in treating this subject, if the word tradition was used in its
proper meaning, and an epithet affixed to it, denoting the ac-
knowledged author. And thus, when we spoke of Apostolical
tradition, Patristical tradition, Popish tradition, &c., we should
understand by each, that which we all acknowledge to have been
delivered by the Apostles, the Fathers, the Romanists, &c. And
so the Fathers often, perhaps generally, used the term ; for not
only did they use the phrase, «< the tradition of the apostles," or
'< apostolical tradition," to denote Scripture, but also <' the tradi^
tion of the Fathers," or " patristical tradition," to denote thafr
which is DOW called apostolical tradition. *

Strictly speaking, indeed, that only is any man's tradition t»

s That BmII fpeakf of " the aecarate obserTance of the patrietieal tradition^"'
(» tai^t^ tifn^ii rm x^frftm r<y«JW4*r.) Ep. 348. § 2, ed. BenedL toL vkk f*

..*

lATftomrcTonr ttuMiKt* 21

«8, which be hinMeV has delivered to nSf either by writing or
orally ; and therefore^ in the case of those who lived at a remote
period, their traditioii to os can only be their written tradition,
and we can receive the oral tradition of those only with whom we
can personally communicate; for it is Dot pret^ded that oral
communications can be handed down verbally^ and consequently
it is at most only the subatance of what was delivered that is re-
delivered, and therefore not precisely the tradition of the first
author, and this, in abstruse doctrinal points, may make all the
difierence.

The oral tradition'of the apostles, ihweforef strictly speaking,
was enjoyed by those only. to whom it was actually delivered by
the apostles. We can only have the report of that tradition
made by others. And to call that report by a name that strictly^
belongs only to Scripture, — apostolical tradition, — necessarilv
creates confdsion ; ior in the one case it applies to the acknowl-
edged words of the apostles, and in the other only to the report
made by others of their substance, and moreover assumes what
is questioned, viz. that that report is indubitably correct Tbi^
confusion is no doubt extremely useful to the Romanists and our
opponents, because it throws a cloud over their statements, which
often enables them to escape with impunity under its cover, when
the light of clearer phraseology w^ould have exposed them to
much inconvenience. But, as our object is to clear this whole
matter to the reader, we shall not make use of 'terms thht assume'
the very point in question,

A noore accurate statement of the views of our opponents,
then, would be this, — that patristical tradition (which to uSf
is, what the Fathers have delivered in their writings,) is under
certain circumstances an indubitably correct representation of
the oral tradition of the apostles to tneir first followers.

Being borne out, therefore, by the Scripture and many passa-
ges of the Fathers, I shall, to avoid ambiguity, use the word
tradition in its strict and proper sense, and not the technical
sense that has often been affixed to it ; for nothing tends so much-
to perspicuity as the use of words in their natural and proper
significations ;> and I shall therefore call the testimony to which -
our opponents appeal, by its proper name of patristical or eecle^
siastieal tradition ; not understanding by those phrases a tradi-
tion of a/!f the Fathers or the whole church, (of which we can
have no evidence or proof , and therefore have no right, to talk

i?3. And cAer delifarittf the dMtrlne relatiDg lo tar Lord's hottan natQT^, ha
fays, ** Th«se are Um niysteriesof Uie Charch, these the tradition of the Fathers/'
(au/Toc/ tm Tienfm du n*f:t^9-us.) Ep. 261. § 3. ib. p. 403. And elsewhere, (if at
least the passage is gernune,} i>e 8p. 8. c. 30. ^ 79. £d. Ben. torn. iii. p. 07.

• /

9Sl IKTKODVCTOBT BSViJULg.

about,) but a traditicm of certain Fathers or a certain jtyor/ioiit
greater or less, of the church.

There are two remarks also, which I would cSer to the reader,
upon the commoQ use of this term, by way of caution.

The first is, that he must be very careful when ertimating the
value of the testimonies adduced by our opponents in favour of
their views from antient authors, to ascertain what those authors-
meant by the *' tradition'' of which they are speaking; for the
word is continually used by them, as we have already intimated,,
in reference to the Scriptnres of the apostles, — a fact which the
Romanists and our opponents seem to be very little acquainted
with, or at least put out of sieht

Thus we frequently meet m the Fathers, as in the instance re-
ferred to above, with the phrase ^^ the Evangelical tradition,''
meaning that which has been delivered by the Evangelists in the
Gospels, — a want of acquaintance with which fact has caused
one of our exponents to niake the mbtake of applying a passage
from Athanasius in a sense precisely contrary to its true mean^
ingf (as we shall point out hereafter,) — and ** the Apostolical
tradition," meaning that which has been delivered in one of the
Apostolical epistles.

The second is, ever to remember that when the terms ** tradi-
tion," <' apostolical tradition," are used bv our opponents, that
which is so spoken of is traceable by us only to the report of the
oral teaching of the apostles, given by others^ and which, at the
bestf rests upon the evidence to be found in certain writings of
the Fathers that happen to remain to us, and moreover is de-
livered, for the most part to say the least, without any claim to
its being derived from the oral teaching of the apostles. This is
a fact so obvious, that it would be hardly necessary to notice it,
but for the circumstance that our opponents Continually reason
as if it was denied that the oral teaching of the apostles was of
equal authority with their writings, and tell us that it is ** apos-
tolical tradition" only to which they defer ; when, in £ict, as to
the authority of the oral teaching oi the apostles, and the defer-
ence due to apostolical tradition, that is, what the apostles really
delivered, all are agreed ; and the sole question is, whether we
have anything besicks the Scriptures for which the title of apos-
tolical tradition can be justiy claimed in any proper sense of the
words. We are all agreed that apostolical tradition, that is,
what the apostles delivered respecting the doctrines of Qiristian-
ity, is a fit and proper foundation for our faith. Indeed there
can hardly be any divinon of sentiment upon such a subject in
the Christian world. All are ready to receive with reverence
whatever the apostles delivered. But the question is, where
that apostolical tradition is to be found. We say that the only

t -^

nmomTGTOBT bxmabks* SS

record of it vpoii wbkh we can hittj defend is the Scripture.
GNir oppoDenU contend tbat in the writinffs thftt remtin to uf of
the earlj church there it to be found anottier record of it upon
which we can mbo Mlj depend. The yerj question at issue,
then, isy whether anr patristical testimony to be fimnd in these
writbigs can be considered as an auikoriiativt record of the oral
teaching of the apostles. To represent it, therefore, as being,
in the strict sense of the terms, ^r/Nw/o/tea/traditioB, and repre-
sent us as unwilling to receive the oral teaching of the apostles,
is to take an unfair advantage of the reader, to assume the veir
point in question. It is a report of it delivered bj men uninspirea,
and liable to error and mistake in transmitting the doctrines of
the oral teaching which thej heard. The Holy Scriptures may
justly be called apostolical tradition. But as to the oral tradi-
tion or teaching of the apostles, it ils evident that, however infal-
lible it may be hi itself, we can only have a falUble report of it
through /attibU men, and that, in fact, the report we do possess
of it is very imperfect, and on many accounts open to iust suspi-
cion. And hence it is clear, tbat when any who Kved lone after
the apostles are said to be taught anything or to judge c? any-
thing by apostolical tradition, the phrase ** apostolical tradition,^
either must mean the Scriptures which the apostles have lejfl, or
is applied in a limited sense ; for if it is apphed to anything but
Holy Scripture, it refers to the patristical report of apostolical
teaching ; and the reader who keeps this in view vrill at once see
the ground on which he stands, tbat it is. the ground of human'
and not divine authority.

And if this is observed, the phrase ^' apostolical tradition," may
be used without danger, as describing the author to whom what
is delivered is attributed^ to distinguish it from eccknaatical or
patristical tradition, where no higher author of the doctrine
delivered is claimed than the church or the Fathers, and thus
in fact the phrase is often used ; but any argument derived from
this use of the name, as if the apostolicity 6{ the doctrine was
thereby necessarily conceded by those who use this phrase, is
manifestly absurd. To avoid mistake, however, we shall ad-
here to the phrase patristical tradition.

Though our opponents, therefore, intimate their claim to the
high-sounding title of " the Apostolicais," we cannot but think
that it seems more justly to belong to those who are satisfied with
the undoubted remains of the apostles, than to those who wish to
add to them from the writings of the Fathers, who (as we all
profess to follow the apostles) might rather be called ** the Pa-
tristicals.** However, the name need not alarm us, when we re-
collect that it was the name assumed by one of the early heresies ;
and one, by the way, which among other (supposed apostolical)

t* UiraODDCTOHT

ootiona was particularly severe against marriage, and those who
lapsed after baptistn.

Another remark which I woald hers offer is, that we draw a
wide dislinction between the value of the testimony of the Fathers
«a to doctrines and the oral teaching of the apostles, and their
testimony as to those matters of fact that came under their im-
mediate coKnizance. It ia important to keep this in view, be-
r fauman testimony is very diSerent in one of
t it is in the other. The value of a man's
t thfit takes place under hia own eye, or to a
e o^ect of Ike KTwea, is very diSerent to that
oral statement, especially with respect to mat-
And this is a truth so obvious and generally
it the report of a communication from another,
matter of fact, would not be received in a
conscious are men of the uncertainties attend-
ing such evidence. How much more uncertainty, then, attends
the reports of communications of this nature when relating (o
such matters as the abstruseand controverted points of Christian
doctrine T However infallible those may be who make the com-
munication, the imperfection and fallibility of the reporters neces-
sarily throw a degree of uncertainty over the report, especially
where it has passed through many hands, and where a slight mis-
apprehension on the part of the hearer, or the change of a word,
might alter the complexion of the whole. Hence the sole reason
why we receive the apostolical accounts of our Lord's doctrine
as entitled to our faith, is because we hold the apostles to have
delivered those accounts under divine guidance. Should we
have received them as entitled to our implicit faith had they been
delivered by uninspired men 1

Hence the attempt has been made by our opponents to con-
found doctrines and facts together, and (o make it appear that
evidence which is valid with respect to the latter must be equal-
ly valid with respect to the former, by urging thai it is a mere
question of fact whether the apostles or the primitive church did
or did not teach certain doctrines, and therefore that human
testimony to such h fact ia as valid as the same testimony to any
ol her fact. But the inference is evidently most unwarranlpd;
for it is a similar question of fact whether the Scriptures do or do
not teach certain doctrines, but men misunderstanding the Scrip*
tures give differeot accounts of this fact, which is an evident proof
that their testimony in such a case is not wholly to be relied
npon. Again, it is a fact that there is a Christian Ejuscopal
Church in England, and it ia a fact thnt that church proposes
certain doctrines to her members in the thirty-nine Articles, and
the testimony of our opponents tQ the existeocs of that ghurch

might be a verj sufficient proof of such fact to those in other
coufltriea, while their testimony as to what doctrines were main-
tained bj her might be considered a very insufficient proof. In-
deed this ai^umenl is altogether founded upon a misuae of terms,
because what is meant bj a matter of fact here is a matter that
originally falls under the cc^nizance of the senses, as distinguish-
ed from that which is merely an object of mental contemplatioo.

We draw, therefore, a wide distin
patristical testimony as to ritual ma i
value in certifying us as to the oral te
whole primitive church ; not to dwe!
have but little direct testimony as to u
the testimony of a few reputable a
prove the fact of the practice of infa
church, (and we sbatl show hereaftf
with respect to doctrines immediatel

and usages of the church,) but not to prove what the doctrine
of the apostles or the whole primitive church was, as to the na-
ture and effects of that sacrament.

Moreover, even as to matters of fact, we munt observe that a
drstinction is to be drawn between those for which we hare the
testimony of an eye-witness, and thdse for which we have only
testimony derivecl from the report of others. We shall find here-
after that even in such points as the duration of our Lord's pub-
lic ministry, and the period of life at which he siiffijred, state-
ments directly opposed to the truth might pass under the name
of apostolical tradition, with the sanction of such respectable
aames as Irenseus and Clement of Alexandria ; and therefore
even as to these matters, where the report comes through seve-'
ral bands, we must not wholly rely upon the testimony of one or
two authors, of whatever repute.

Tt is true, our opponents endeavour to make up for the obvious
ancertainty attendant upon such testimony, by hmiting it to that
which is uDirersal or established by what they call catholic eon'
sent ; bat, as we shall hereafter see, their alleged Universality
and catholic consent are mere words and not realities, for errors
and heresies existed in the church from the very first, and (to
name no other objection) the testimony we have-for the first few
centuries is derived from documents wholly insufficient to prove
catholic consent On this point, however, we shall have occarioD
to speak more at large in another place.

Another point which I would request the reader to observe is,
that when speaking of the Holy Scripture as the only certain
depository or teacher of divine revelation, and the sole Rule qf
faith, we apply the words in the strict sense of the terms, a* im-
plying that which binds the conscience to the reception of what-

20 IN1R0DUCT0S7 REMARKS.

ever it may deliver, not as signifying that it is the only guide \o
the truth. There are many useful guides to the truth besides
the Scriptures, of which the writings of the early Fathers, form
one, and an important one.

It is very necessary to keep this distinction in view, because
the advocates for '< tradition" often catch an unwary reader by
speaking as if their opponents had no regard, no respect for the
writings of the primitive church ; whereas, they may be, and
have been, held in high estimation as guides in our search. after
the truths of religion, by many who reject them as forming part
of the rule of faith, or giving an authoritative testimony respect-
ing the doctrines of Christianity.

There has been much very extraordinary misrepresentation
upon this point in the writings of our opponents, against which I
would here at the outset caution the reader. Language has been
used implying that all those who do not take their views hold
the Fathers in utter contempt, and look upon the great lights of
the primitive church only with scorn, and they are held up to

Imblic derision under the name of ^* ultra protestantsJ^ Such
anguage is wholly unjustifiable, and reflects discredit only upon
those who use it. The hasty and ignorant remarks of individu-
als who know nothing of the Fathers are not to be charged upon
a whole body of men for the purpose of bringing theirsentiments
into disrepute. It may be convenient in controversy to impute
to your adversary extreme views, and is often an argument very
effectual with the popular mind, which generally inclines to ex-
tremes. But it is merely throwing dust in the eyes of the read-
er to blind him to the real question. Our opponents must be
quite aware that there are multitudes of those who differ from
them, who have no sympathy with men who talk contemptuously
of antiquity and the early Fathers.

We believe that our Lord has had a church upon earth ever
since his first advent, and that we have among the records of an-
tiquity many valuable works penned by his true followers ; and
that the writings and records of the primitive church mdy be, on
various grounds and in many ways, useful in guiding us to a
knowledge of the truth, and more especially in guarding us
against error. Nay, we are ready to admit that a notion put
forward as an^ important article of faith which finds no support
in any of those writings, is thereby convicted of error, and thus
that in the refutation of heresy and error those writings are of
great value.

We hold also that the consent of many of the nuMtable and
pious ecclesiastical writers of antiquity (and what is called ea-
tholic consent is nothing more than this) in favour of any parti-
cular view of divine truth, is an argument qf great force in de-

niTRODUCTOBT BBHABKfl. 27

fence of that view, not from the improbable poesibility of such
consent having been derived from the oral teaching of the apos-
tles, but rather from the probable evidence afforded by such
consent, (as one of themselves, Theodoret, will tell us,) that thej
were ail under the guidance of one and the same omniscient
Spirit, whose teaching renders all those to whom it is vouchsafed
valuable guides to the church at large in all ages. " Immense
mountains and seas," says Theodoret, after showing the identity
ef the testimony of several of the earliest Fathers upon certain
important points, *' separate them one from another, but the dis-
tance has not injured their harmony. For they were all taught
by the same spiritual graced* *

Further, we do not deny that any man who differs from the
true catholic church of Christ in fundamental points, must be in
fatal error, and that the faith of that church in such points must
in all ages be the same ; we do not deny that there may have
been fuller communications made by the apostles to some of their
first followers on some points than we find in the Scriptures they
have left us; we do not deny the j[7(>^^?dz7i7^ that interpretations
of Scripture brought to us through the Fathers may have origi-
nally emanated from the apostles; we do not deny, but on the
contrary firmly maintain, that the true orthodox faith, in at least
all fundamental points, is to be found in the writings of the primi-
tive Fathers, and therefore that it is very necessary /that in all
such points our faith be such as can find support in their writ-
ings: but the question is, whether there is sufficient evidence of
the divine origin of any thing but Scripture to entitle it to authori-
ty over the conscience as a divine revelation ; whether in the
testimony of the Fathers there is to be found any thing which,
either in form or in substance, we are bound to receive as the
Word of God delivered to the church by the apostles, and conse-
quently forming part of our divinely revealed Rule of faith
and duty. This is the real question, and this question we answer
in the negative* We assert that there is no sufficient evidence
of the divine origin of any thing but Scripture; and '' tradition"
is on many accounts not sufficiently trustworthy to be received
as a divine informant. Our opponents, with the Papists, main-
tain the affirmative, and assert that p'atristical testimony may,
under certain circumstances, be taken as a *' practically infalli-
ble" representative of the oral teaching of the apostles, and that
we do in fact possess, in the patristical writings that have come
down to us, a testimony respecting certain doctrines and interpre-
tations of Scripture and other points, so indubitably of apostolic
origin as to bind the conscience to the reception of it as part of
the Divine Rule.

1 See testimonj of Theodoret in ch. 10 below.

t8 IlfTBODVOTOmT RSICASS0.

There is one more observation ivhicb I would here at the ont*
set offer to the reader, and that is, that our great coocem id
treating this subject will be to point out the facts of the case,
and make them the ground for our conclusions. Speculative
arguments have been adduced on the question on both sides,
which, however plausible they may appear to the general reader,
are far from being trustworthy. Thus the advocates for the ex-
clusive authority of the Scripture have often urced that the
Scriptures being given by God for the instruction, of mankind in
religion, they must be perfect for the accomplishment of the pur?
pose for which th€y were given, and therefore must contain all
that has been revealed for that purpose. 3ut it does not follow
that, because the Scriptures were given for that purpose, they
^ are necessarily all that has been given. It is here assumed that
the end they were designed to answer was the instruction of man-
kind in the whole of divine revelation. This our opponents deny,
and a^ert that we have inspired testimony on the subject of re*
ligion over and above what is contained in the Scriptures, and
that consequently, though the Scriptures may be, and no doubt
are perfect for the end for which they were given, they form
only a portion of God's gift for the direction of man in religion.
So, on the other hand, there are those who support the views of
our opponents, who urge the necessity of having some inspired
or practically infallible testimony to appeal to for the interpreta-
tion of the Scriptures and the decision of controversies in import-
ant points, in order to preserve peace in the church, and that God
would not have left his church without such a help ; -which is the
old Popish argument for the supremacy of the Pope, and serves
as well for that hy)|>othesis as the one before us, and is evidently
founded upon a mere human speculation as to what would be
suitable to the Divine character and convenient to us. It might
be very convenient for us to have such a judge of controversies,
and the most convenient of all would be an individual judge in
the centre of the church to act as Christ's vicar ; but the ques-
tion is. What are the facts of the case? It is not for us to de-
termine what the character of God seems to us to render it like-
ly that he would give, nor what we might think convenient and
desirable, but what God has given us.

And in such a matter we are bound not to surrender our rea-
son to the dictum of any man or body of men, but with humility,
with a mind open to conviction and bent only upon arriving
at the truth, to investigate the evidence upon which a claim set
up in behalf of any testimony as a divine informant rests.

The great object of the following work, then, is to demonstrate,
in opposition to the view just stated, that there is nothing of
which we have sufficient evidence that it is divine or inspired

IMTKODirCTORT BSHUtKS. 29

testimony but the Holy Scripture ; and consequently that the
Holy Scripture is our sole and exclusive Divine Rule of faith
and practice.

Before, however, we proceed further, we shall in the next
chapter show what are the precise views of our opponents as
stated by themselves.

o2

90

CHAPTER II.

THE DOCTBIKB OF DR. PUSET, MR. KSBLE, MR. NEWMAK, AND THE
** TRACTS FOR THE TIMES," ON THE SUBJECT OF FATRISTICAL TRADI-
TION, AND POINTS CONNECTED THEREWITH, WITH SOME GENERAL
OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR STATEMENTS.

The writers to whom I alluded more particularl j when speak-
ing of the views that have been lately advanced among us on the
subject of '< tradition,'' are those whose names are prefixed to this
chapter. I am not, I believe, saying more than they have them*
selves avowed, when I state that, besides the works published in
their own names, they are the principal writers and compilers of
the Tracts entitled "Tracts for the Times, by Members of the
University of Oxford." Mr. Newman has also published among
other works, " Lectures on Romanism and Popular Protestant-
i8m,'Mn which the doctrinal system he advocates on the subject of
•« tradition," church authority and the right of private judgment, is
somewhat elaborately laid down. Mr. Keble has also published
a Sermon on " Primitive Tradition," to the third edition of which
is added an Appendix, conta4ning further proofs and illustrations
of his argument, and a Catena Patrum from Divines of the
English Church, alleged to be favourable to his views. The views
of Dr. Pusey on this subject are very pithily laid down in his
" Earnest Remonstrance to the Author of the Pope's Letter;*^ re-
printed as No. 77 of the " Tracts for the Times."

Before I proceed further, therefore, I am desirous of placing
distinctly before the reader th^ views advanced in these works
on the subject of patristical tradition ; views for the refutation of
which this work is more especially intended.

I speak with deliberation when I say, that a system so com-
pletely opposed to the views of the whole stream of our most
able English divines from the lleformation to the present day, as
that laid down in the above works, never saw the light. Inci-
dental observations tending to Romish views have no doubt been
thrown out at times by various divines of our church, particularly

among tbe extreme sectioD «f the Moojaron, ta, for instance^
Brett, Dodwell, dbc, men notoriously staDcliiig in a very iocoiwi-
derable minority in the churcby but now referrtd to by these
writers as expressing her views in suchpaints / a circmnetance
worthy of n6tice in determining how £ir the system now pat for-
ward is entitled to the high naiaes so confidently claimed for it^
of Catholicism and Anglicanism*

I begin with Mr. Newman, whose riews on this subject are
propounded in his '* Lectures on Romanism and popular Protest-
antism/' from which work I have made the following extracts,
arranging them so as to present to the reader (with, at least in
the intention, scrupulous fidelity) a compendious view of the
whole doctrine of Mr. Newman on the subject.

With respect to the Holy Scripture, then, it is granted by Mr*
Newman, in words, that it contains all the essential and funda-
mental articles of the faith, '< all things necessary to salvation ;''
^' the saving faith,'' (p.. 238, &c.); but it is not ** the only ground
of the faith," (p. 369,) nor '< the source of all religious truth what-
ever," (p. 370,) but there is another ''grounds the.iaith," and
also need of something else to teach us those truths of religion
which are not contained there.

The other ^ ground of the faith" and ^' source of religious
truth," is considered to be ** tradition^^ and these two-[i. e. ^ the
Bible and Csltholic Tradition,"] together make up a joint rule,
[i. e. of faith,]" (p. 327.)

With respect to *^ tradition,''—

It is held that there is a Divine word left unwritten by the
apostles containe^d in the writings of the Fathers, so surely pre-
served, that V' whatever explanations the Pro.testant makes in be-
half of the preservation of the written word, will be found appli-
cable in the theory to the unwritten/' (p. 46,) that *< we have at
little warrant for rejecting antient consent as for rejecting Scrip-
ture itself," (p. 325) that ^* catholic tradition," is a divine infor-
mant in religious matters," (p. 329,) <* the unwritten word," p.
355. ' "

This unwritten word is ^ antient consent," (p. 325,) often spo-
ken of under the name of '* antiquity;" << we agree with the Ro-
manist in appealing to Antiquity as our great teacher,^' (p. 47,)
the meaning of which is thus stated : '< Let us understand what
is meant by saying that antiquity is of authority in religious ques-
tions. Both Romanists and ourselves maintain as follows: — that
whatever doctrine the primitive ages unanimously attest, whether
by consent of Fathers, or by councils^ or by the events of history,
or by controversies, or in whatever way, whatever may fairly and
reasonably be considered to be the universal belief of those ages,
is to be received as coming from the apostles, (p. 62; see also

82 Docntnni of thi tbaotatoss.

pp. 297-9.) This is Mr. Newman's view of the nature of ^ the
unwritten word" and bow it is to be ascertained.

It is considered that this ** tradition," or ^ unwritten word," is
nectMary for the following purposes. First, as the authority
upon which we are to receive the canon of Scripture, the doc-
trine of its divine origin^ and the genuineness of what we re-
ceive as such. '^How do we know that Scripture comes from
God f It cannot be denied that we of thb age receive it upon
general tradition ; we recdve through tradition both the Bible
itself^ and the doctrine that it is divinely inspired.^^ (p. 42.)
'' The sacred volume itself, as well as the doctrine qfits inspira-
tion, comes to us by traditional conveyance." (pp. 44, 5.) ** We
receive the New 'Testament in its existing shape on tradition."
(p. 341.) << We consider the inspired canon was cut short in
the apostles whose works are contained in the New Testament,
and that their successors had no gift of expounding the law of
Christ such as thev had, because the same ages so accounted it"
(p. 371.) Secondly, for the interpretation of Scripture. ^* The
need of tradition arises only from the obscurity of Scripture, and
is terminated with the interpretation of it'' .(p. 384.) *< Scrip-
ture does not interpret itself, or answer objections to misinterpre-
tations. We must betake ourselves to the early church, and see
bow they understood it" *' Scripture was never intended to
teach doctrine to the many.'' ** I would not deny as an abstract
proposition that a Christian may gain the whole truth from the
Scripture, but would maintain that the chances are very ierious'
ly against a given individual. I would not deny, but. rather
maintain, that a religious, wise and intellectually gifted man will
succeed : but who answers to this description but the collective
church?' (pp. 189-90.) '« These two [i. e. the Bible and Catho-
lic Tradition] together make up a joint rule, [i. e. of ^ faith];
Scripture is interpreted by Tradition^ Tradition veri&ed by Scrip-
ture." (p. 3271) Acute men among them [L e. Protestants] see
that the very elementary notion which they have adopted of the
Bible without note or comment being the sole authoritative judge
in controversies qffaith^ is a self-destructive principle.^* (p. 35.)
Scripture is '< but the document of appeal, and catholic tradition
the authoritative teacher of Christians, (p. 343.) And '^ the cathor
lie doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation and others similar to
these, are the true interpretations of the notices contained in
Scripture of those doctrines respectively." (p. 153.) ** They [i.
e. popular Protestants] must either give up their maxim about
the Bible, and the Bible only, or they must give up the Nicene
formulary. The Bible does not carry with it its own interpretation.
When pressed to say why they maintain fundamentals of faith,
they will have no good reason to give, supposing they do not re^

Dooxsnai -or ms tbactatobs. 38

cdve the creed alto as a thibt priitoiple. Wh j, it is asked tbem,
should those who equally with themselves believe io the Bible be
denied the naine of Cbriatiansy because they do not happen to
discern the doctrine oS the Trinity therein ? if they answer that
Scripture itself singles out certain dbctrines fis necessary to sal-
vation, and that the Trinity is one of them^ this indeed, is mott
true^ but avails not to persons committed to so untrue a theory.
It is urged against them, that, though . the texts referred to
may imply the catholic doctrine, yet they need not; that they abb

CONSISTENT WITH ANT OVE OUT 07 SXVEBAL THfiOBlES; OT Ot any

rate that other persons think so ; that these others have as much
right to their opinion as the party called orthodox to theirs ;
that human interpreters have no wat'rant to force upon them one
view in particular; that private judgment must be left unmo-
lested; that man ^must not close vrhat God has left open; that
Unitarians (as they are called) believe in a Trinity, only not in
the catholic sense of it; and that, where men are willing to take
and profess what is written, it is not for 4is to be '^ wise above
what is written," especially when by such a course We break the
bonds of peace and charity. This reasoning, orantino the
' FIRST STEP, IS resistless." (p. 292, 3.) That is, the Bible is al-
together of ambiguous meaning ; it may or may not mean to
speak ** the catholic doctrine," it is " consistent with any one out
ofseveral theories," or at any rate there are people who think
so, and therefore it is unjust to say that the Socinians are not or-
thodox, unless we have an interpretation of it to tell us what it
means, which we can look upon as equally '< a first principle,"
that is an infallible or divine informant ; which '* first principle"
is " the creed," a phrase used by Mr. Newman to signify, accord"
ing to convenience, either the Apostles^ Creed or the Nicene Creed,
or those in Irenaeus, Tertullian, &c., as if they were all identical.
Mr. Newman is not aware, I suppose, that the Apostles' Creed
has been misinterpreted as much as Scripture by the Socinians,
and therefore that, by his own 'showing, bis Socinian '< resistless
reasoning" is as applicable against himself, when he condemns
the Socinians, as against his ^'popular Protestants."

It is considered also to be important, and in fact relatively
necessary for making known to us religious truths not in Scrip-
ture ; for it is *^ partly the interpretation, partly the supplement
qf Scripture.*^ (p. 298.) In p. 335, we have a specimen of these
supplementary truths. " It is only by tradition that we have
any safe and clear rule for changing the weekly feast from the
seventh to the first day 5" — so that it is a necessary part of the
divine rule of practice, *^ Again, our divines, such as Bramhall,
fiull, Pearson, and Patrick, believe that the blessed Mary was

84 DoomiNB or tbm tractatom*

* ever virgin,' lu the church has called her ; but tradition was
[certaioly] their only informant on the subject.''

Such is the doctrine of Mr. Newman with respect to Scripture
and Patristical Tradition, a doctrine precisely identical with that
of the Romanists, as we shall presently prove. Indeed, Mr. New-
man appears, with one excjeption, to allow as much. For after
explaining the Romish doctrine of <* tradition," he says, " As a
beautiful theory, it must, ^s a whole, ever remain. I do not,
indeed, deny that to a certain point it is tenable : but this is a
very different thing from admitting that it is so as regards those
very tenets for which the Romanists would adduce it. They
have to show, not only that there was such a traditionary system,
and that it has. lasted to this day, but that their peculiarities are
part of it." (pp. 41, 42.) •* We agree with the Romanist in
appealing to antiquity as our great teacher, but deny that his
doctrines are to be found in antiquity. So far then is clear; we
do not deny the force of tradition in the abstract ; we do not
deny the soundnessof the argument from antiquity; but we chal*
lenge the Romanist to prove the matter of fact. We deny that
his doctrines are in antiquity," &c. (pp. 47, 48.) "Our contro-
versy with Romanists turns mbre upon facts than upon first
principles.*^ (pp. 50, 51.)

The doctrine maintained, therefore, on the subject of " tradi-
tion" by Mr. Newman and the Romanists is the same. And the
only difference on this subject supposed by Mr. Newman himself
to exist between his doctrine and that of the Romanists, is thus
stated by him : — " We differ from the Romanist in this, not in
denying that tradition is valuable, bujt in maintaining that by
itself and without Scripture warrant, it does not convey to us any
article necessary to salvation.*' (p. 370.) This observation
however is, as I shall show presently, founded on a mistake, for
the Romanists maintain this as much as Mr. Newman. They
hold that Scripture contains all points necessary to salvation ;
and when they speak of the necessity of believing things not there
declared, but delivered by "tradition," it is not because such
things are in themselves necessary to salvation, but because
" tradition" being a divine informant^ a rejection of them is a
direct act of disobedience to God.

In all respects, therefore, the doctrine of Mr. Newman and the
Romanists on this subject is the same, the only difference being
as. to whether some particular articles can be proved by " tradi-
tion.'^

With this system of Mr. Newman agrees perfectly that of Mr.
Keble, as I shall now proceed to show.

First, with respect to the Holy Scriptures, Mr. Keble grants,
in theory, that "every fundamental point of doctrine is contained

r t

DOCTKIKB OT THE TBACTATOKS,

36 DOCTSIIfB OF THB TRACTAT0R8.

principle of interpretation in which all orthodox Fathers agree/'
he considers to form an indubitable part of '' the system of the
apostleSf^* entitled to equal reverence with their acknowledged
writings, (p. 40.) ** If any one ask how we ascertain them, we
answer, Bj application of the Well-known rule Quod semper^
quod ubique^ quod ab omnibus ; antiquity, universality, catho-
licity." (pp. 32, 33.)

Among the points which rest on the authority of ^^ tradition,''
he reckons tb^ canon of Scripture; ^'The points of catholic
consent known by tradition constitute the knots and ties of the
whole system; being such as these, the canon (/ Scripturey^

&c. (p. 41.) << Among the traditionary truths is the

canon of Scripture itseiff*^ (p. 45) : as well as its inspiration,
for it is by tradition that <' the validity^* of Scriptulre is *^ ascer-
tained.^' (p. 74.) Also the interpretation of f ^ripture, and
the full development of its doctrines. The '^in ^rpretation of
Scripture" is one of *< three distinct fields of Christian knowl-
edge" which he points out, '' in neither of which can we advance
satisfactorily or safely without constant appeal to tradition
such as has been described." (p. 34.) '^Catholic traditbn
bears upon Scripture interpretation not only indirectly by sup-
plying, as just now stated, certain great landmarks of apostoli-
cal doctrine conformably to which thjs wbittek state-
ments ABB ALL TO BE intsrfbetbd ; but also in numerous
cases directly." (pp. 35, 36.) " Whether we look to discipline^
to interpretation or to doctrine^ every way we see reason to be
thankful for many fragments of apostolical practice and teach'
ing MOST NEEDFUL to guidc us in the right ude of Holy Scrip-
ture." (p. 39.) The English church, ^* acknowledging Scripture
as her written charter, and tradition as the common law
whereby bothr the validity and practical meaning of that
charter is ascertained^ venerates both as inseparable members
of one great providential system." (p. 74.) This necessity of
tradition for the interpretation of Scripture is of course supposed
to arise from the obscurity of Scripture. '^ If so it had pleased
Almighty God," says Mr. Keble, *^ the Scriptures might have

been all clear of themselves Men mscy go on imagining

the advanta^ of such a dispensation, until they have persuaded
themselves that things are really so ordered." (p. 149.) So that
even in the fundamefital points of faith the Scriptures are not
** clear.''* Notwithstanding all the explanations given by the
apostles on those points in their writings, they have not at last
made them clear ; they have not written so as to be understood ;
the cedent proof of this being, that in all aees some ha V€i inter-
preted their writings contrary to the ortho<K)x faith, so that the
perverse misinterpretation of the natural mind is to be taken as

DOCTSXZnB OF THS TBJLCTJLT088. d?

evideoce that the Scriptures are not clear. Hence the observa*-
tioD that the Bible is M a volume which may be understood with-
out traditional aid," is made bj Mr. Eeble the subject of par-
ticular remark as an olyectionahlt statetnenU (p. 88.) *' Tra-
dition," he says, '^ helps to explain the Scriptures somewhat in the
same waj, and with the $ame kind of evidence, as the grammar
of a language, once rightlj taught, explains the sentences of that
language." (pp. 141, 2.) Hence he holds the *^ rule of fait h^^
to be ^^made up of Scripture and tradition together J ^
(p. 82.)

The twa other '' fields of Christian knowledge, in neither of
which we can advance satisfactoril j or safelj without constant
appeal to tradition,^' are <' the system and arrangement of fun-
damental articles," and *^the discipline^ formularies^ and
rites of the Church of Christ." (pp. 34, 37.)

Further; <f tradition" reveals to us truths *^not contained in
Scripture.^* For Mr. Eeble says, ** As lon^ as it is only doubtful
whether any statement or precept is part of the apostolic system
or no, so long a mind imbued with true devotion will treat that
statementor pi^ecept with reverence. • .... . so long the mere
fact of its JIOT BBiifo coNtAiif KD iiT ScRiPTURR caunot be felt as
a justification for casting it aside. . . • . ^ . But, in truth, it may
h^prQved to the satisfaction of any reasonable mind, that
notafew fragments yet remain, very precious and sacred frag-
ments, of the unwritten teaching of the first age of the church.
The paramount authority, for example, of the successors of the
apostles in church government; the threefold order established
from the beginning; the virtue, of the blessed Eucharist as a
commemorative sacrifice ; infant baptism; and above all, the
Catholic doctrine of the most holy Trinity as contained in
the Nicene Creed. All these, however surely confirfned from
Scripture, are yet ascertainable parts of the primitive unwritten
system of which we yet enjpy the ben^t." (pp. 81, 82.) Such
are some of the points not contained in Scripture, which are
revealed to us by tradition. This is not the place to' notice them
more particularly ; but it is impossible not to direct the reader's
attention to the statement, that the <* Catholic doctrine of the
most holy Trinity, as contained in the Nicene Creed," is *' not
contained/ in Scriptiire," though it may be ** confirmed from
Scripture," directly contrary to the statement of our first Homi-
ly, to mention ho other authority.

Of the importance attached by Mr. Keble to the traditionary
doctrinal matter not contained in Scripture, we may judge from
the following passages :^-^' The sacred building is so divinely,
tiiough invisibly, cemented, thq:t for aught we know» it is impossi-
ble to remove Akiy portion, either o( scriptural or traditionary

VOL.1. n

38 DOCTBIXB or TQX THACTATOBS.

tnithy without weakening the whole arch Let uSf

above all things, beware of the presumption of selecting for our-
selyeSi anK>ng the truths and laws of the Most High, which we
will retain, and which we may venture to dispense with." (p. 46.)
** Confining our view to that which touches the foundation^ we
shall find that the matters are neither few nor unimportant^

which are settled by traditionary evidence." "The

points of catholic consent, known iy traditiony constitute the
knots and ties of the whole system^, heXng such as these^ — the
canon of Scripture, the full doctrines of the Trinity and In^
carnation^ the oblation and consecration of the Eucharist, the
apostolical successipn ; truths and orders soon enumerated, but
such as to extend in vital efficacy through every part of the
great scheme of the church." (pp. 41, 42.)

When, therefore, Mr. Keble says that Scripture contains all
the fundamental points of fai^h, we must either suppose that he
thinks the supplementary part of the doctrine of the Tridity
learnt from tradition not to be fundamental^ or (which rather
appears to be his view and that of Mr. Newman) that Scripture
so contains these truths that we need tradition to assure us of
the fact, and that, then, after having learnt the truth from tra-
dition, we may find in Scripture passages which will **' coi\firm'^
it, or, as it is elsewhere expressed, " hints" and " notices" of the
orthodox faith.

Such b the doctrine of Mr. Eeble on this subject, being, as
must be evident to the reader, precisely the same as that of Mr.
Newman, the divine origin and necesSty of " tradition" being
indeed rather more than less strongly enforced, and therefore,
like Mr. Newman% identfcal with that of the Romanists. It is
rather remarkable also that he has made the ^me mistake as
Mn Newman with respect to the nature of the Rombh doctrine
on this subject, accusing the Romanists of avouching ** tradition
of the substance of doctrine independent of Scripture, and pur-
porting to be qf things necessary to salvation.*^ (p. , 71.)
But this, as I shalj prove presently, they do not do.

The doctrine of Mr. Keble and Mr. Newman, then, on this
subject, is in few words this, — That the revelation made to the
world by our Lord and his apostles comes down to us in two
different channels, one of which is the written word, the other
the successional delivery by the Fathers of that which the apos-
tles delivered orally to the church. And as the apostles entered
into fuller explanations of the doctrines of the faith in their oral
statements than they have in their writings, and gave some in-
formation and directions to the church on matters both of doc-
trine and practice not contained in those writings,, the reqord of
their inspired testimony which we have in the writings of anti-

•OCraiKS W TEE TSACTATOBt. 89

quity, is more foil tind clear than that wbkh We have in the
Scriptures. And a« is in all the fundamental doctrines of the faith
and some others of less moment, as well as in various points of
practice, this traditional record of what the ^apostles delivered
orally caii be so verified as to be a **practicalfy ir\faUible^
witness of what they did so deliver, in all these cases the brief
and obscure ** hints" and ** notices*' of Scripture are to be inter-
preted by the more full and clear record ojf revelation we have
in << catholic tradition,'* and the defi<ciebcies of Scripture made
up by the ^* supplemental" records of " catholic tradition."

And as to the degree of plainness with which the faith is de-
livered in Scripture, the author of Tract 85 tells us that ^ the
gospel doctrine or message'' ^ is but indirectly and covjbrtlt
recorded in Scripture under the surface." (p. 27.) ** Scripture
is not one book — it is as if you were to seize the papers or cor-
respondence of leading men in any school of philosophy or science,
which were never designed for publicution^ and bring them out
in one volume. You would find probably in the collection so re-
sulting many papers begun and not finished, some parts systematic
and didactic, but the greater part made up of hints or of notices
which assumed first principles instead of asserting them, or of
discussions upon particular points which happened to require their
attention. I say the doctrines, the first principles, the rules, the
objects of the school woufd be taken for granted, alluded to, im-
plied not stated. You would have some trouble to get at them ;
you would have many repetitions, many hiatuses, many things
which looked Hke contradictions^ you would have to work
your way through heterogeneous materials^ and after your
best efforts there would be much hopelessly obscure ; or, on
the other hand, you might look in vain in such a casual collec-
tion for some particular opinions which the writers were known
nevertheless to have held, nay to have insisted.on. Such I con-
ceive, with limitations presently to be noticed, is the struetureof
the Bibhr {The limitations shall be given after the next pas-
sage.] '< Try to make out the history of Rome from the extant
tetters of some of its great politicians, and from the fragments of
ancient annals, histories, laws, inscriptions, and medals, and you
will have something like the matter of fact viewed antecedently
as regards the structure of the Bible, and the task of deducing
the true system of religion froqn it." (pp. 30, 31.) On all this I
offer no commenti but commend it to the serious attention of the
reader.

Now for the '' limitations." - Unfortunately for our opponents,
tbere is an Article of ourchurch upoh this subject, (Art. vi.) and
therefore tomehow or other the language of that Article must be
leetained We are therefore told that <' at least as r^ards mat-

40 DOOTSIIW OF TMM TBAOTATOBS*

ters of faith Scripture ii>e^ contain all that is oeceasary for salva-
tion ; it has been overruled to do so foy Him who inspired it.''
(p. 82.) But determined that those words shall niean nothing and
be no obstacle in his wpy, the writer immediately proceeds to the
task of explaining them away, and shows, us, in the following
wordst the object and value of his preceding remarks. ^.This
antecedent improbability [^. e. of Scripture containing the faith]
tells even in the case of ^he doctrines of faith as far as this, that
it reconciles us to thejiecessity of gaining them indirectly from
Scripture, for it is a near thing {id may so speak) tfiat they
are in Scripture at all; the wonder is that they are all there ;
humanly judging, they would not be there but for God's interposi-
tion ; and ther^ore since they are there by a sort qf accident^
it is not strange they shall be but latent there, and only indi^
redly producible thence.^^ (pp. 32—4.)

And on this subject he thus contradicts himself within the com-
pass of a few pages. Having stated in p. 25, as the doctrine of
the English church, that as to the whde system of religion re-
vealed in the Gospel, '' though it is in tradition, yet it can also be
gathered from the communications of Scripture," he tells us in
p. 48, that 'Mhough Scripture be considered to be altogether
silent as to the intermediate state • « . there is nothing in this
circumstance to disprove the church's Ixx^trine, fi/ there be
other grounds /or it J that there is an intermediate state, and
that it is important. " '

Nay, still more, to prepare ud for the reception of matters
delivered by" tradition" which may vseem even at variance with
Scripture, he collects tc^etber (pp.36-*-48) a number of instances
of what he holds to be seeming contradictions in Scripture
itself, in order to draw from them the conclusion^ that in the
same way things delivered by " tradition" may not be really at
variance with Scripture, though they may appear to be so. And
that the reader may know that I am not exaggerating when I
state this, I will give his conclusion in his own words. " The
argument, ^^ he says, " stated in a few words stands thus ; — as
distinct portions of Scripture itself are apparently inconsis--
tent udth one another, yet are not really so ; therefore it does
not follow that Scripture and catholic doctrine are at variance
unth each other, even if they seem to be" (p. 49.) How this
may strike the reader I know not, but to me it appears to outdo
Rome itself, and leave Bellarmine to go to school.

The doctrine on this subject, then, advocated by Mr. Neveman
and Mr. Keble, may be summed up in the five following points.

1. That consentient patristical tradition, or *< catholic consent,"
is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in religioui and
consequently entitled, as to its substance, to equal respect with
the Holy Scriptures.

DOCntlXE OF THE TEACTATOSS. 41

2. That such tradition is coDseqventlj a part of the divinely*
revealed rule of faith and practice.

3. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and
{Practice, on account of the defectiveness of Scripture, for that, —

(1) Though it does not reveal to us any fundamental articles
of faith or practice not noticed in Scripture, Holy Scripture con-
taining, that is, giving hints or notices of all the fundamental
articles of laith and practice, it is yet a necessary part of the
divine f ule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture,
and as giving the full development df many points, some of which
are fundamental, which are but imperfectly developed in Scrip-
ture; and

(2) It is an important part of the rule, as conveying to us vari-
ous important doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture.

4. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and
practice, because of the obscurity of Scripture even in some of
the fundamental article^, which makes Scripture insufficient to
teach us even the fundamentals of faith and practice.

5. That it is only by the testimony of patristical tradition that
we are assured of the inspiration of Scripture, what books are
canonical^ and the genuineness of what we receive as such.

The doctrine held by Dr. Pusey on this subject is so very pithily
expressed in a sentence occurring in his <* Earnest Remonstrance,"
that it is hardly necessary to search any further*

"Our controversy with Rome," he says, "is not an a priori
question on the value of tradition in itself or at an earlier
period of the churchy or of such traditions as, though not con-
tained in Scripture^ are primitive^ universal^ and apostolical,
but it is one purely historical, that the Romanist traditions not
being such, but on the contrary repugnant to Scripture, are not
to be received." (p. 13.)

This at least is plain speaking for a divine of the Church of
EIngland.

Let it, therefore, b6 distinctly understood, that when the
authors of th^e works complain of being misrepresented when
said to favour Romanism in their views of patristical tradition,
they do so only because they think that the Komish doctrine on
the subject is the catholic doctrine, though some of the traditions
the Romanists admit are unauthorized, and therefore that they
ought not to be thus stigmatized, because, though holding the
Romish doctrine on the subject, they do not hold all the tradi-
tions peculiar to Rome.

It is quite true, indeed, (nor do I wish to conceal the fact,)
that there are divers nice distinctions drawn by these writers in
other parts of their works, by which, for very obvious reasons,
they endeavour to rescue their doctrine from the charge of being

42 DOCTRira OF THE TBAOTATOB0.

identical with that of the RoniaDists. Dr. Pusey himself, tbougb
in the above seotence he clearly admits the identity of the two^
endeavours, in his apologetical ''Letter to the Bishop of Oxford,"
to draw a distinction between them in words, by telling us that
" Rome difien from us as to the authority which she ascribes to
tradition ; she regards it as co-ordinate, our divines as ^u&-ordi-
nate; as to the way in wtiich it is to be employed $ she as inde-
pendent of Holy Scripture^ ours as subservient to and blended ^
with it," &c. ; and after adding some other supposed marks of
distinction, in which the distinct questions of << tradition" and
church authority are strangely confused, concludes, "So then be-
yond the name of tradition the church of Rome and our divines
differ in every thing besides." (pp. 41, 42.) Now all this is, beyond

iiuestion, uttered in the most perfect good faith, but it will be
ound practically to be nothing more or less than a complete jug-
gle of words. For what, I would ask, can be the use or propriety
of drawing distinctions by the application of the words co-ordinate
and subordinate, between two informants equally divine, which
we are told that Scripture and tradition are? The sole question
with which we are concerned is, whether patristical tradition is a
divine informant, and therefore binds the conscience to the re-
ception of what it delivers. He who holds that it is, is bound to
receive it as the Romanists do, pari pi^iatis affectu with the
written word. And such, beyond con|:radiction, is the doctrine
upheld in the works from which we have quoted above, as well
as in other publications attributed to the same authors, as, for in-
stance, the British Critic, where " antiquity** is expressly spoken
of a«"reve/a/aon" equally with Scripture.* Dr. Pusey himself
tells us, a few pages after, that *^ we owe , . . to the decisions of
the church unii^ersal, Faith,^* (p. 63.) Now taking this sen-
tence in its least obnoxious signification, as referring to the deci-
sions of the church universal, not as self-authoritative, but as the
infallible witness of apostolical tradition, (which is, I suppose, its
intended meaning,) I would ask whether church-tradition is not
placed here upon precisely the same footing with Scripture, and
whether the distinction between the two alluded to above is not
a mere verbal and not a real distinction? Indeed, it is obvious
that to maintain that Scripture contains only an imperfect deli-
neatiouy hints and notiices, of the roost important doctrines, and that
the full revelation of them is only to be found in <^ tradition," and
yet avqr that we make tradition oply subordinate to Scripture,
is an inconsistency and (I must be pardoned for adding, an) ab-
surdity of no ordinary kind.
Mr. Newman has also offered some remarks of a similar na-

1 See BriU Orit., for. Jan., 1838, Article on Froude'e Remaine, and elsewhere.

DOOTBira OF TBS TRACTATbMB, 48

ture; But we shall notice tbem more partictdarlj in another
place.

Such, then, is the doctrine on patristical tradition propounded
in these works as the doctrine of the Englbh church.

The reader should also understand that this doctrine forms part
of a system laid down (though perhaps with some variations and
inconsistencies) in the Tracts and works to which we have re-
ferred, to which is very confidently ascribed (I leave the reader
to determine how justly) the name of Catholicism and Anglican-
ism, as opposed to Romanism on one side and Protestantism on the
other ; and as the subjects of church authority and the right of
private judgment are intimately connected with that we are now
considering, I will add here some extracts from Mr. Newman's
Lectures sufficient to put the reader in possession of his doctrine
(which, from their union in the> publication of the Tracts, we
must of course conclude to be that of Dr. Pusby and Mr. Keble
also) on those subjects, that he may see more clearly the nature
of the system. *^

First, as to the authority of the church.

'* The church," says Mr. Newman, "enforces, on her own re-
sponsibility, what is an historical fact y and ascertainable as
other facts, and obvious to the intelligence of inquirers as
other facts; viz., the doctrine of the apostles; and private
Judgment has as little exercise here as in any matters of sense
or experiencz.^^ ....." The church enforces a fact — apos-
tolical tradition — as the doctrinal key to Scripture, and private
judgment expatiates beyond the limits of that tradition.^* (pp.
224, 5.) How Mr. Newman can reconcile ther statement that
" the doctrine of the apostles" is a " historical fact ascertainable
as other facts, and obvious to the intelligence of inquirers as other
facts," with the fact that the nominal church has always been
more or less divided in opinion respecting it, I must leave to him
to explain. It must be confessed, however, that if it were not
supposed to be so obvious a historical fact, Mr. Newman takes
good care to give the church sufficient power to enforce it. For
he says,—" Not only is the church catholic bound to teach the
truth, but she is ever divinely guided to teach it; her witness of
the christian faith is a matter of promise as well as of duty ; her
discernment of it is secured by a heavenly as well as a human
rule. She is indefectible in it, and therefore' no^ only has au*

thority to enforce, but is of authority in declaring it

that doctrine, which is true, considered as an historical fact, is
true also because she teaches it." (pp. 225, 6.)

Here, as is clear, the doctrine that the church is an infallible

Slide in matters of faith, is very distinctly laid down, and Mr.
ewmau; commenting upon 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; Eph. iv. 11 — 14; Isa.

4i Docmm or TBM.-nACttKfm.

Dg that these texts "are coDsid^wl b^ the

he infallibilit; or the church in all matters of
imis," adds, — "They certaiolj will bear ao to
iQDot be denied : and if this be so, why, it may
interpret them as the Romanists do?" (pp-
le replies, that the church, from her " mis-
re forfeited in a measure her original privi-
Ve shall tind, I think, in the New Testament,
her was suspended, more or less, upon a con-
ny centuries she has actually broken. This
(p. 236.) Accordingly he limits her infalli-
bility to the fundamental points qf faith, holding that " the
antient church will he our model in all matters (^doctrine, till
it broke up into portions, and for catholic agreement substituted

Eeculiar and local opinions ; but thai, since that time, the church
as possessed no fuller measure oHhe truth than we see it has at
this day ; viz. merely the fundamental faith ;" (p. 241 ;) and to
that extent he ascribes to her permanent infallibility. " Both
we and Romanisls," he says, " hold that the church catholic is
unerring in its declarations of faith or saving doctrine." (p. 252.
See also p. 232.)

Strange to say, he proceeds to point out two passages in our
received formularies as bearing out this doctrine. " First, in the
20th Article we are told that the church has 'authority in con-
troversies of faith.' Now these words certainly do not merely
mean that she has authority to enforce such doctrines as can his-
torically be proved to be apostolical. They do not sp^k o>f
her power of enforcing truth, or of her power of enforcing at all,
but say that she has 'authority in controversies ;' whereas, if this
authority depended on the mere knowledge of an historical fact,
and much more if only on her penuasion in a matter of opinion,
any individual of competent information has the same in his place
and degree. The church, then, according to this Article, has a
power which individuals have not ; a power, not merely as the
ruling principle qfa society, to admit and ryect members, not
simply a power of imposing tests, but simply ^authority in
controversies of faiths But how can she have this authority
unless she be certainly true in her declarations? She can
have no authority in declaring a lie." (pp. 226, 7.) The sum total
of which reasoning — if reasoning it can be called — amounts to
this, that there can be no authority where there is a liability to
«rror, a doctrine which needs no further refutation than a clear
statement of it. "Our reception of the Atbanasian Creed," it is
added, "is another proof of our holding the infallibility of the
church, as some of our divines express it, in matters of saving
faith. In that creed it is uuhesitatiDgly said, that certain doc-

46 BocTsira or ths tbactatobs.

Fathers : and she acts uprni tiiis her witnecfl as the EncQtIre
does in civil matters, and is responsible for it ; but she does not
undertake of herself to determine the sense of Scripture, she h^B-
no immediate power over it, she but alleges and submits to what
is antient and catholic We consider antiquity and catholi-
city to be the real guides, and the church their organ.'' (pp. 320
— 322.) So that, in fact, the office of the church is authoritative^
Ij to promulge the interpretation of Scripture given by catholic
tradition^ and she is divinely guided to tell us truly and infallibly
in the fundamentals of faith, what that interpretation is. The
Bible, therefore, b to the church herself a very secondary book,
for she can receive its truths only as they are doled out to her by
the tradition of preceding ages. ** Catholic tradition" being the
unwritten word of God, and therefore entitled to equal respect
%ilh the Scriptures, and moreover the au/Aon/a/ive interpreter
of the meaning of the Scriptures, and containing a full revelation
of the doctrines of the faith, which in Scriptures are only indirect*
It and obscurely noticed, it is of course much more valuable than
the Scriptures. And the first " proof' that the testimony of" the
church" as to the witness of apostolical tradition is correct is,
** her own unanimity throughout her various branches." **Now
^the church" is made up of these branches, and cannot speak at
all but through their unanimity, and therefore this amounts to
saying that the first '* proof' that her testimony is correct is that
she bears that testimony. And, in fact, though "tradition'^
should fail her, she would be " almost infallible," Mr. Newman
thinks, for he says, — ** the church truly may be said almost in*
fallibly to interpret Scripture, though, from the possession of past
tradition, and amid the divisions of the time present, perhaps at
no period in the course of the dispensation has she had the need
and the opportunity of interpreting it for herself." .... Such
interpretations ^ the church has never attempted.^' (p. 190.) It
IB some comfort, however, for her to know, that if any thing should
oblige her to attempt it, she will be " almost infallible.^'

The church, therefore, being thus vested with authority to
declare and enforce that catholic tradition which is the authorita-
tive interpreter of Scripture, is to be viewed herself as, with re-
spect to us, the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. ^ We da
not," says Mr. Newman, " set up the churth against Scripture, —
but we make her the keeper and interpeter of Scripture."
(p. 228.) And "if we inquire the ground of this authority in
the church," it is " that she speaks merely as the organ of the'
catholic voicCj^ the organ of catholic tradition ; (p. 227 :) and in
fundamentals is to be viewed, as we have seen, as infallible in
her decrees.

V

DOCTBIXni OF THE TKACTATOBfl. 47

After tbefie statementsy the reader will of course Dot be sur-
prised at finding that the Protestant doctrine of the right of
private judgment is absolutely olSensive to him. In immaterial
points, inde^y he would allow the right, provided that it was
silently exercised ; but that it should be exercised upon points
upon which our salvation depends, that is quite out of the
question.

" By the right of private judgement,'* he says, ** in matters of
religious belief and practice, is meant the prerogative, considered
to belong to each individual Christian, of ascertaining and decid*
ing for himself from Scripture what is gospel truth, and what is
not" (p. K2.)

This principle is, in Mr. Newman's view, most pernicious.
He calls it <' that mischievous, but very popular principle among
us, that in serious matters we may interpret Scripture by pri-
vate judgment" (p. 218.) " If the church," he says, " does not
claim any gift of interpretation for herself in the high points in
question, [i. e. the fundamentals of the faith,] much less does she
allow individuals to pretend to it Explicit as our articles are in
asserting that the doctrines of faith are contained and must be
pointed out in Scripture, yet they give no hint that private per-
sons may presume to search Scripture independently of external
help, and to determine for themselves what is saving, [in other
words, presume to obey the direct injunctions of the first Homily.]
The church has a prior claim to do so, but even the church as-
serts it not, but hands over the office to catholic antiquity. In
what our Articles say of Holy Scripture as the document of
proof exclusive rtference is had to teaching. It is not said
that individuals are to infer the faith, but that the church is to
prove it from Scripture; not that individuals are to learn it, but
are to be taught it" (pp. 323, 4.) So that individuals are not
even to make Scripture the document of proof; it is not for them
even to test what ♦* tradition," or " the church," may say, by
Scripture: no, *Met this maxim," it is said, *' be laid down con-
cerning all that the church catholic holds, to the full extent of
her prophetical tradition^ that her members must either believe
or silently acquiesce in the whole of it" (p. 303) ; aye, so much
flo, that " when the sense of Scripture, as interpreted by rea-
son, is contrary to the sense given to it by catholic antiquity,
we ought to side with the latter. ^^ (p. 160.)

Now, I must say, that it appears to me a very wise precau-
tion on the part oi the Romanists, holding similar views to these^
to interdict the general use of the Scriptures, and onlv to give
permission to a few whom they can trust to read them ; for if our
laith it thus to be grounded on the authority of the church, and
aot upon what appears to us to be the meaning of the Holy

48 DOCTBINE OF THE TRACTAT0R8.

Scriptures, it is a pity to give men generally an opportnnity of
consulting them, lest they should happen to think, as some assur*
edly will thinks that their meaning, even in some important
points, is not precisely what their church tells them that it is ;
especially if they are so " obscure,'* and contain only " hints"
and ** notices" of even the fundamental points of the faith. And
how near Mr. Newman has got to this view of the matter may
be judged from the following sentence : — ** By the right of pn-
vate judgment is meant, not that all mustfhut that all may search
Scripture, and determine or prove their creed from it : that is,
PROVIDED THET ARE DULY QUALIFIED, for I suppose this is
always implied, though persons may difier what the ^qualifica^
tions are." (p. 174.)

In ^ serious matters," then, the right of private judgment is
altogether denied, and our faith is to rest not upon Scripture,
(except as far as we may happen to think that what the church
delivers as catholic tradition gives the true meaning of Scripture,)
but upon that which the church delivers to us as catholic tradi-
tion, or rather upon the church, as one infallibly guided to direct
us aright in fundamentals.

The right of private judgment is confined to ** matters of in-
ferior moment." ** In matters of inferior moment," says Mr. New-
man, '' both the church and the individual have room to exercise
their own powers ; the individual to judge for himself, and the
church to give her judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of
the Lord to be faithful ; and that for this simple reason, either
that Scripture or tradition is obscure, indeterminate^ or silent."
(p. 325.) '' The church enforces a fact — apostolical tradition-*
as the doctrinal key to Scripture, and private judgment expa-
tiates beyond the limits of that tradition.*^ (p. 225. ) We hold
^* that the church has authority, and that individuals may judge
for themselves outside the range of that authority.^ (p. 320.)
But in such matters (and so far 1 quite agree with him) *< it is
pious to sacrifice our own opinion to that of the church," and
** we must avoid causing any disturbance.'* (p. 161.)

Catholic tradition, however, being considered a divine infor-
mant, this right of private judgment cannot of course be considered
to extend to those matters even of inferior moment to which that
tradition is supposed to bear witness.

Now, after attributing so much to the authority of ** the catho-
lic church," making her infallible in all fundamental points of
faith, and requiring absolute submission to her authority in such
points, and the suspension of all private judgment upon them, it
might reasonably be expected that Mr. Newman should tell us
how we may learn what this church says. He allows this, and
remarks, ** You speak, it may be urged against me, of the church

DOOTSINB OF THK TRACTATOSS. 49

catholtCy of the church's teaching, and of obedience to the church.
What n meant by the church catholic at this day T Where is
she 7 What are her k>cal instruments and organs? How docs
she speak! When and where does she teach^ forbid* command,
censure T How can she be said to utter one and the same doc-
trine every where, when we are at war with all the rest of Chris-
tendom, and not at peace at home?' (p. 310.) What then b
his reply 1 It is as follows : — ** Whatever truth there is in these
remarks J still I cannot allow that what I have been above
drawing out is therefore a mere tale of other times, when
addressed to those who are really bent on serving God as well as
they can, and who consult what is mo6t likely to please him.
The very difficulty of applying it will be a test, whether we ear-
nestly desire to do his will or not" (p. 311.)

In other words, he candidly confesses that after all he cannot
tell who constitute '^ the catholic church." Having led us into
the. wood with a promise that we should there find an infallible
gtiide ia all (kndamental points, he fairly confesses that he knows
not where or what he is, intimating withal, as we shall see pre-
sently, what is a tolerably clear proof that to mortal eyes he may
be indiscernible. Can he be surprised that the reply of many is,
We have got an infallible guide already, given ns by God himself
and with that we are contentec) until you can dbtinctly point out
to us another of *whom you can produce equal evidence that he
comes from God.

The church indeed, as consisting of <* the blessed company of
all faithful people," must no douot be always orthodox in the
fundamentals ot the faith. But how is the voice of that church
to be heard T Where are its declarations and decrees to be
found t And Mr. Newman admits that ** the promise that the
word of truth should not depart out of the mouth of the church
. . . might be satisfied . • . • though this were all, which many
think to be its highest meaning, that there should always be in
the church some true believers" (p. 234) ; i. e. he admits that the
true church may consist of a select body of believers scattered
throughout the nominal church, so that the voice of {\xt legisla-
tive part of the church may be any thing but the voice of the
true church, L e. the sound part of the professing church. For
instance, the voice of the Romish church on the doit trine of justi-
fication, as heard at Trent, may be any thing but the voice of
that portion of the true catholic church which we may hope is to
be found within the Romish church ; and so may it be in the case
of any other part of the nominal catholic church. And what is
true in this respect^ in the case of each part taken separately,
will be tnie of the whole viewed as a whole.
Nevertheless, though be is unable to inform us who constitute

VOL. L s

90 DOCTRINE OF THB TBACTATOStf.

** the catholic chfurch/' viewed as an infallible guide, and whether
it may not after all be a scattered body of indiTiduals^not tracea-
ble as a body by the eyes of men, yet he cannot persuade him-
self, as he ingenuously confesses, to give up his view as one not
reducible to practice, and therefore proceeds to assert a claim in
favour of our own church being considered by ** Anglicans'^ as
the representative of that church, and entitled to the same ob^di^
ence. " To follow the church in this day is to' follow th6 Prayer-
book." (p. 313.— See the whole of pp. 310^17.) Now, in all
the expressions of respect, veneration, and attachment which he
applies to our church, I most cordially agree. Were it his object
to recommend that church to the afiections of the nation as a
holy, scriptural, catholic, and apostolical church, and to warn
the sects that have departed from her communion of the guilt of
separation for matters confesstdly not alSecttng the fundamentals
of the f^ith — 'Were this, I say, his only object^ most cordially
would I welcome his efforts, fiut when he places her upon an
eminence to which she has no rightful claim, and to which, not-
withstanding the argument, may I not say puerile argument,
raised from her 20th Article, and adoption of the Atbanasian
Creed, I will venture to say she offers no claim ; when, in her
name, he demands obedience to her as infallible in all fundamen*
tal points of faith, and limits the right of private judgment to
points beyond the limits of what she receives as fundamental, then
surely it becomes those of her members who do not embrace such
doctrine, nor believe it to be hers, to raise their protest against
such, as it appears to them, dangerous delusions.

The difference between these views and those of the Romish
church is merely this, — that the Romish church, considering her-
self to be " the catholic church,*' (so that she avoids the inconsis-
tency of Mr. Newman, who makes what he acknowledges to be
but a part equivalent to the whole,) asserts that she is infallible
not merely in the fundamentals of the faith, but in all her deci-
sions, and therefore limits the right of private judgment to those
points upon which she has not decided ; while Mr: Newmah con-
siders the church infallible only in the fundamentals, and there-
fore seems to allow private judgment somewhat greater scope.
(See pp. 232, and 252, 3.) But even here, I suspect, the differ-
ence is rather nominal than real. For he says, **The church
enforces a fact — apostolical tradition — as the doctrinal key to
Scripture, and private Judgment expatiates beyond the limits of
that tradition, (p., 225.) Now he certainly does not limit that
*' traditi6n*' to the fundamental pomts; and if not, this is tanta-
mount to what Rome says, for she claims no power for the church
of adding to the faith once delivered by the apostles, but only of
" enforcing" the truths banded down by <^ apostolical tradition ;*'

1H>CZRI2C£ OF THE THACTAT0R8. 51

Qind sach tradition aft is witnessed to in the writings of the Fathers.
The difference, tben^ would be nierely this. Rome says that the
church is infallible^ through divine promise, in delivering d//
points as much as in delivering the fandaiiientalsof the faith. Mr.
Newman says that she is fiot infallible^ except in the fundamen-
tals, but, having an obvi^tis historical fact ^ apostolical tradition,
to guide her, she cannot make a mistake, • A v^ry nice dis-
tinctiou i

The advancement of such claims in behalf of our church ap-
pears to me calculated to do her essential disservice^ and even to
alienate the affections of many from her, if led to suppose that such
are ber principles. In my humble view they are totally ojpposed
tor her whole spirit and language.

' Does she refer us to *^ tr^tion** as our teacher ! So far fh>m
it, that she says in her ^ Exhortation" to her members *^to the
reading of Holy Scripture," — ** Let us diligently search for the
well of life in the books of the Neva and Ola Testament , and
not run to the stinking puddles oi men^s traditions, devised by
men's ioiaginationt for our justification and salvation. Foa in
Holy Scripture is fully contained what we ought to do and
what to eschew, what to believe, what to love, and what to look
for at God's hands at length,*' (Hom. 1.) Now, whatever may be
the traditions here referred to, I put it to the common sense of
any reader whether the direction here given to ** search for the
well of life in the booksof the New and Otd Testament. . . for
tn Holy Scripture \% fully contained what we ought to believe,"
&c., is consistent with the direction that we are to learn the faith
from " tradition," and make " tradition" a joint rule of faith with
Scripture.

Does she hold that Scripture is so obscure that it needs '< tra-
dition" to interpret it ? Nay, she says, " The humble man may
search any truth boldly in the Scripture, without any danger of
«rror. And if be be ignorant, he ought the nu>re to read and to
search Holy Scripture to bring him out of ignorance." Although
many things in Scripture be spoken in obscure mysteries, yet
there is nothing spoken under dark mysteries in one place, but the
self-same thing in o4her places is spoken more femiKarly and
plainly to the capacity both of learned and unlearned. And those
things in the Scripture that he plain to understand and neces-
sary for salvation^ every man's duty is to learn theipy to print
them in memory, and effectually to exercise them." (Hom. 1.)

Does -she claim obedience to herself as infallible in all the fun-
damental points of finith, and forbid the exercise of private judg-
snent upon those points, demanding that they should be believed
upon her interpretation of Scripture as the witness of catholic
teadition X What mean, then, her exhortations to her individual

52 Docntiirs of the nuoTATosi.

members to << search for the well of life in the books of the Old
and New Testament?" &c. She makes^ therefore, no such pre-
sumptuous claim. Nay, more, she knows that she needs it not
In the bumble confidence that her doctrines are agreeable to the
written word of God, she exhort^her members to search for them-
selves in the Scripture^, resting satisfied that God's children will
find her faith there.

But, on this point, that is, as to the views advocated by our
church on these matters, I shall have occasion to speak at large
in a future chapter.^

Mr. Newman, I allow, makes this claim for the Church of
England, on the ground of her having faithfully followed *' catho-
lic tradition." JSut, in the first place, this is a matter of opinion.
Romanists deny it Some of our own sectaries deny it This
cannot, therefore, be taken for granted, and those of us who are
unable to compare her views with those of the primitive church
are utterly unable to judge in the matter. Supposing it, how-
ever, to be. granted that antiquity prepondcsrates in her favour,
which as a maiier qf private opinion we should have no hesi<*
tation in doing, then the question recurs, what is the value of the

Eatristical tradition we possess in any point? Can we rate it
igher as a positive testimony tlian as affording a probable or
confirmatory argument for that which has been (bund in Scripture ?
Such are the views which we are required to receive as exhi-
biting the doctrine of the Church of England upon these points,
though, with singular inconsistency, it is allowed that this middle
path^ as it is called, *' has never existed except on paper, it has
never been reduced to practice.'* (p. 20.) " To take, for instance,
the subject of private judgment ; our theory here is neither Pro*
testant nor Roman, and has never been realized**^ (p. 21.) " It
still remains to be tried whether what is called Anglicanism, the
religion of Andrews, Laud, Hammond, Butler, and Wilson, is ca-
pable of being professed, acted on, and maintained on a large
sphere of action, and through a sufficient period." (p. 21.) '^If
the English Church has the mission, hitherto unfulfilled^ of re*
presenting a theology Catholic but noti Roman, here is an espe-
cial reason why her members should be on the watch for oppor-
tunities of bringing out and carrying into effect its distinctive
character." (p. 24.) <*The English doctrine, is not embodied in
any substantive form, or publicly recognised in its details." (p. 27.)
*' The middle path adopted by the English Church .... has
never been realized in any religious community^ and thereby
brought home to the mind through the senses." (pp. 153, 4.) Mr.
Newman, conscious apparently of this inconsistency, attempts to
give an explanation of it thus,— ^<* That though Anglicanism is

> See diap. xi.

y

BOCTBUne OF THB nxocxT&MM. 63

iK>t praejUcaUj reduced tomtem in Ub fulneoByit does exkt in all
its parts in the writings qf our divines^ and in good measure is*
in actual operation, thoueh with vaFjing degrees of consistency
and completenessy in d\fftrent places** (p. 28,) — which expla-
nation I leave with the reader. He adds, that in points not de-
termined by the Prayer-book, or Thirty-nine Articles, or " epis-
copal authority/' (the HonUlies^he, it observed, are carefully
excluded,) we '^are not left to ourselves to determine as we
please, but have the guidance of our standard writen, and are
bouud to consult them, nay, when tkejf agree^ to follow tkem^
but when they difier, to adjust or to choose between their opi-
nions," (p. 29;) and to know which are our *< standard writers," we
are to observe that ^' there have ever been thriee principal par-
ties in the Church of England, the Apostolical, the Latitudmarian,
and the Puritan," (p. 23 \) the apostolical being represented by
a few whom our opponents claim as agreeing with them, such as
Archbishop Laud and others, and the other two being '*but mo-
difications of Sociniantsm and Calvinism," (p. 23 ;) so that we have
only to throw overboard all those who di&r from the school of
Laud, and the residue will represent the '' apostolical" portion of
the divines of the Church of England, the " standard writers."
This process of elimination is doubtless very necessary to stamp
the doctrine of Mr. Newman with the character of Angli-
canism. JVay, I believe and hope to prove in a subsequent chap-
ter, that we must eliminate most of these apostolicals also, to get
at this result And this process affords the shortest path imagi<*
nable to a conclusion, for no argument can be less complicated
than this, Those divines that take my view of the subject are the
apostolical portion of the divines of our church, the rest being
either Laludinarian or Puritan, and so ^' but modifications of So-
ciniantsm and Calvinism," and therefore clearly my system of doc-
trine is Anglicanism' and the doctrine of the Chtirch of England.
That the apostolical portion has never been able to get its views
acted upon in the church, is, 1 suppose^ only a sad proof that du-
ring the whole three centuries of its existence as a reformed
church, error has been triumphant, and therefore, in Mr. New-
man's words, *' is an especial reason why her members should be
on the watch for opportunities of bringing out and carrying into
eflect" those views.

Thus Amglicanism and the doctrine of the Church of England
is not what has been generally and publicly professed and acted
upon by that church, but a theory existing (as U is supposed) in the
writings of some of her principal divines ; and the church is ar-
raigned at Mr« Newman's bar for not having carried out this
theory, — a theory which, as a church, she never recognized,—
into practice.

E*

64 DoognuiTB w ram tbaotatoiu.

The iDConabteDcy and presamptioD of all this are truly extra-
ordinary.

Against such statements it is useless to argue^ and therefore,
with these few remarks to commend them to the notice of the
reader, I leave them at his disposal.

Before we proceed, however^ it is very necessary that we
should point the reader's attention to a few passages in the works
to which we have referred above, calculated to show him the ab-
solute necessity of caution and reserve in the perusal of them.
Those that are more closely connected with our subject I shall
notice hereafter in their appropriate place; but I will give a
few here, in order at opce to show the reader that the statements
of the Tractators are not to be received with thai implicit con-
fidence which their triumphant tone and assumed intimate ac-
quaintance and agreement with the Fathers and ecclesiastical
antiquity,. and the divines of our church, seem to demand of us,
and that in fact they may make very strange mis-statements and
very extraordinary mistakes.

The first I would notice is one of considerable importance, and
lying at the foundation of the system, L e. the interpretation of
that article of the Creed, ^ I believe, in the Holy Catholic
Church." " Christians," says Mr. Newman, *• have a demand
on their teachers for the meaning of the article of the Apostles'
Creed, which binds them to faith in * the Holy Catholic Church,' "
(p. 7*) ; and consequently, to illustrate, as he thinks, that article,
the " main object" of his Lectures *Ms to furnish an approxi-
mation in one or two points towards a correct theory of ihe duties
and office of the church catholic ;" to direct attention to points
** connected with the pastoral qffice of the church." (pp. 8, 9.)
And his doctrine on this subject is, that Christians are bound to
exercise a ** childlike reliance on" the church as " the guide
which is ordained by God to be the interpreter (if his message J^
(p. 307, and see whole of Lect XL) The meaning, therefore,
of this article of the Creed is evidently assunied to be, (as it has
been before interpreted by Romanists^) ** I believe what the
Holy Catholic Church says," in accordance with the observation
already quoted from Dr. Pusey, that **weowe . . . to the de-
cisions of the church universal, faith ;" and so far from any de-
fence of this exposition being given, it is assumed as if it were
universally acknowledged, and in one at least of the writers of
, this party I recollect having seen the accusation that those who
opposed them could not believe one of the articles ef the Creed !
Now, if Mr. Newman and his party will just turn to that Exposi-
tion of the Creed which has been so sanctioned in our church as
to be, I might almost say, of a secondary degree of authority in

K

DOCTSm OF THI TKACTATOtl.

66 DOCTUIKB OF THE TSACTAT0B8.

ought to be read with very considerable caution. The error
sought to be affixed to that Article is the verj foum^ation of
our opi^nents' system, viz. that our faith is due not to Scripture,
but to what the decision of the universal church (a thing utterly
unattainable) pronounces to be the meaning of Scripture, and
lays down as the truth.

Another point, which it is impossible to pass over without no-
tice, is the nighly*coloured and exaggerated representation made
by Mr. Newman of the views of what he calls popular Protes-
tantism, L e. Protestanjtism as it stands distinguished from his own
system. Of the extraordinary statements m^de on this head
I will give the reader a specimen.

And^ first, of the «* Protestant sects," of whom he says, " After
whatever misgivings or reluctance, they seem to allow, or to be
in the way to allow, that truth is but matter of opinion; that
Chat is truth to each which each thinks to be truth, provided he
sincerely and really thinks it ; that the divinity of the Bible
itself is the only thing that need be believed, and that its mean-
ing varies with the individuals who receive it ; that it has no one
meaning to be ascertained as a matter of fact, but that it may
mean any things becatise it w said to mean so many]things:"
£The very thing which Mr. Newman's own reasohing in many
places assumes.] (p. 35.) And accuses them of an '* adoption of
the lalitudinarian notion that one. creed is as good as another."
(p. 36.) Now, though I am not about to take up the defence of
the Protestant sects, I cannot ' but express the pain and regret
with which I read such sweeping misrepresentations of their
views.

But they are not the only sufferers in this way, for in many
other similar statements a large proportion of the clergy and
members of the Church of Endand are evidently intended to be
included ; and the representation given of their views, under the
title of '* Popular Protestantism," on this subject, are such as
these,-**^ The external means of judging are such as Scripture,
the existing church, tradition, catholicity, learning, antiquity,
and the national faith. Popular Protestantism would deprivg

VS OF ALL THESE EXTERNAL MEANS, CXCCpt the tcxt of Holy Scrip-

ture." (p. 156.) ''A widely-extended shape of Protestantism in '
this country, and that which professes to be the most religious
of all, maintains that though Scripture may seem to mean any
thing in matters of faith to unassisted reason, yet that under the
guidance of divine illumination it speaks but one doctrine, and is
thus the instrument of the Uoly Ghost in converting the soul.
Starting from this fundamental article, its advocates speak as
follows: — that Scripture is the only divine instrument given us,
that every thing else is human," &c. — (which, thank God, is very

SOCTVNB OF IBM TlACTi^UBa.

58 DOCTXIXB OF tBM TKACtATOSfl.

On such statements as these it is quite unneeesKiry lo i>Ber d
remark, and therefore I will onlj say, that it b difficult to under-
stand how Mr. Newman can suppose that they can have any
other effect with persons at all well informed on the subject than
to recoil with tenfold force upon their author. One can hardly,
however, help remarking that Romish doctrines and Romish tac-
tics generally go together.

I will give but one more extract in illustration of this point.
<' How very extravagant is the opposite notion now so common^
that belief in the fiible is the sole or main condition for a man
being considered a Christian ! how very unchristian the title by
which many men delight to designate themselves, turning good
words into bad, as Bibk-christians ! We are all of us Bible-
christians in one sense; but the term as actually used is unchris-
tian, for the following reason,* — directly it is assumed that the
main condition of communion is the acceptance of the Biblef as
the word of God, doctrines of whatever sort become of but
secondary importance." (p. 291.)

Now, I would ask Mr. Newman, as this doctrine — that the
mere acceptance of the Bible as the word of Grod, independently
of a consideration of the doctrines it may be held to support, is
the main condition for a man being considered a Christian, — is
** 80 common'^ among his opponents, to name a few worthy of
notice who hold this doctrine. If he cannot do so, he must be
content to be chained with a very grievous misrepresentation of
their views. The fact is, (as he can hardly but be aware,) that
the meaning of the great body of those who call themselves Bible-
christians is nothing of the kind, for they hold, as much as Mr.
Newman, that there are fundamental doctrines in Chrbtianity,
a belief of which is necessary. But the term is used (o distingubh
between those who hold that the Bible only is a divine informant,
and those who hold that there is another divine informant besides
the Bible. And thus the Romanbts have made use of it as a
term of reproach for the Protestants, as holding that the Bible
alone b the rule of faith ; a reproach which Mr. Newman and
hb party seem most desirous to show is inapplicable to them, but
which our excellent Archbishop Tenison will tell them ought to
be very differently met by us, and received not as a reproach
but an honour. " The faith of the reformed," says the Arch-
bbhop, '* has by some of their adversaries of the Roman persua-
sion been called Biblism : and they themselves have had the
name of Biblisis given to them. And those i/iey look upon as
names of honour, though they toere intended as marks of infamy by
the inventors of them : for it is both a safe and a v)orthy practice^ to
take for their rule the Word of God tatker than the toord of man.
That was the rule which Christ left to his churchy and the judicious

DOCTBnCB OF THE TI^ACTATORg. W

and sincere CkriMians o/* all ages have governed themselves by it ;for
they hate beHevedf as Athanasius did^ * That the Holy and Divine
Scriptures are of themsdves sufficient for showing the truth,' " *

I hope, therefore, tbnt we may still take leave to *' delight in
the name" of JBiblisU and Bible-^christians, as distinguishing us
from those who hold such doctrines as that advocated bj the
Tractators; and that Mr. Newman will hesitate before be again
misrepresents as he has done those who do delight in that n^me.
It is worthy of remark also, that while the mouths of individu-
als arguing from ike Bible are to be stopped, one who argues
from the testimony of ** Tradition,^* or what appears to him to
be so, may raise his voice against the whole church. ^ We," tl
is added^ *' make it every individual's prerogative to maintain and
defend the Creed . . . The humblest and meanest among Chris-
tians may defend the faith against the whole church, if the need
arise ;" and the way in which this individual is to ascertain that
bis interpretation ot the Creed is right, is ^* to ascertain the fart
what is the meaning of the Creed in particular points, since mat-
ter of opinion it is not, any more than the history of the rise and
spread of Christianity itself," as if the Creed was not open as
much to variety of interpretation as the Scripture. This surely
comes particularly unforttmately after such an exposition of an
article of the Creed as we have had to notice above by one who
is such an admirer and student of antiquity as Mr. Newman.
And bow thi» doctrine is to be reconciled with bis statements in
other parts respecting our duty to follow the church as the keeper
and witness of catholic tradition, is ioconceivable.

It is very painAil to have to deal with such mis-statements.
To expose their unfairness sufficiently without appearing to in-
sinuate wilful misrepresentation, (which in this case I am far
from wishing to do,) is most difficult.

Does he really suppose that beqause some hot-headed and ill-
informed men may have chosen to talk nonsense, he is justified in
thus vituperating (for it is nothing less) that large body of his
brethren in the church, as well as those out of the church, who
oppose his views? Mr. Newman knows well the effect upon the
popular mind of such a representation of the views of an anta-
gonist as shall lead them to conclude that he is in the extremes of
absurdity and fanaticism. But such statements savour much
more of party zeal and special pleading than of Christian can-
dour and the upright defence of a good cause. He must be per-
fectly conscious that bis views are strenuously opposed by men to
whom the sentiments which he has here attributed to his oppo*
nents would be as objectioDable as they can be to himself.

i Popery not fonnded on Scriptare. London, 1688, 4to. Introduction, p. 5.
Tiifi Introduction wm wriUen by TenlMo, the rest of the Tolame by others.

50 DOCTRIinB OF THB TRAOTJ^TCMt*

The same unfair mode of argving is adopted by Mr* KeMe^
(hough not certainly tp the enwe extent. All his remarks tend
to make the reader suppose that those who oppose his view of
the value of ^ tradition," antiquity, and the Fathen^ deny that
they have any value at all. Thus, after having observed, *< We
love not to allow that in any sense we rest our faith andprac*
tice upon traditian^^^ he immediately adds, ** and • * . objec*
tions the most contradictory are brought to justify this our den
termined disregard of antiquity ;" as if there was no medium
between ** resting our faith and practice upon traditidn," and a
** determined disregard of antiquity." (p. 39, and see similar re^
marks, pp. 74, 67, &c.) Now this is a loose and adeaptandum
9tyle c^ argument which may deceive many readers, but to one
who looks for an accurate and judicious treatment of the subject,
it betrays a bias and prejudiced state of mind very far from satiso

factory.

Take, also, the folk>wing instance: — *'Our ultra-Protestant,'*
says the author of Tract 61, '< would consistently reiect the doc-
trine of the sacrifice, (as he would the rite of infiint baptism,) hp*
cause there is no explicit authority for it in Holy Scripturcr no
statement of it totidem verbis ; the Anglican divine must receive
it as the doctrine of the church catholic coinciding with hints qf
Holy Scripture.''^

The writer of this was, or ought to have been, perfectly aware
that the persons to whom he applies the name of '< Ultra*Protest-
ants,*' do not hold the necessity of a statement of doctrine totidem
verbis in Scripture, but that a doctrine should follow by neces-
sary consequence from what is stated in Scripture. The reader
will also observe what in our opponent's view is the Anglican
doctrine on this subject, namely, that we are bound to receive as
" the doctrine of the church catholic," whatever is stated by
certain Fathers, and has " Am/*" of Holy Scripture in its favour.

But in truth there is a. great deal of haste (to use no harsher
term) displayed by our opponents in more than one respect in
their endeavours to propagate their views, which has led to very
much and very grievous misrepresentation of the sentiments, not
only of those whom they oppose, but of those whom they would
fain make the reader think are their friends, that is, the great
majority of our best divines, — a misrepresentation which has
been the mainstay qf their cause. Men who have in the most
clear, explicit and direct terms opposed the view they advocate,
are coolly and deliberately quoted by them as the supporters of
their scheme, even in the very works in which it is repudiated.
To give but one instance. They themselves refer to the famous

> Tract 81, pp. 98, 9.

9»OTBn«X OP TUB TBA0TATOB8. 61

rule of Vincentiua as tbe groundwork of their scheme on the
subject of" tradhioV making that rule the certain test of truth,
and endeavouring to persuade us that thus it had been considered
by all our great English divines ; referring, among others, to the
learned Bishop Stillingfleet, especially his work on ** Tbe Grounds
of Protestant Religion," who in that verv work says, — " Wise
men who have thoroughly considered of Vincentius his way,
though in general they cannot hut approve of it so {elt as to think
it highly improbable, that there should be antiquity, universality,
and consent, against the true and genuine sense of Scripture, yet
when theyconsider this wayof Vincentius, with all those cautions,
restrictions and limitations set down by him, (1. 1. c. 39,) they
are apt to think that he hath pot msh to a wilo-goose chase to
niTD OUT AKT THING AcooRDiiie TO HIS Bui.ES ; and that St. ^u^
gustine spake a great deal more to the purpose when he spake
concerning all the writers of the church, * that although they
had never so much learning and sanctity he did not think it
true because they thought so, but because they persuaded him
to believe it true, either from the authority qf Scripture or
some probable rea^on.^ (p. 279, ed. 1665.) And in another
part, he shows ** how little certainty^^ there is " in his way of
finding out traditions." (p. ,247.) Now this rule is put forth by
our opponents as the test of *' apostolical tradition," and that
which is supposed to stand this test is a divine informant, having
authority over our consciences as supplementary to, and interpre-
tative of Scripture, and of this view Bishop Stillingfleet is conti-
nually quoted as the supporter, even from tbe very work from
which we have given the above extracts. •

Other instances of this the reader shall have in abundance
hereafter.

Further, let us inquire how far their accuracy may be relied
upon in their statements respecting antiquity and the views and
doctrines of the Fathers, where the reader might suppose from
the tone they have assumed, that their knowledge was of the
most perfect kind, and that their statements were the result of long
study and intimate acquamtance with the records of antiquity.

What does the reader think of the following passage? —
^ The baptismal confessions recorded in the Acts are of thtf na-
ture, ^ I believe that Jesus is the Son of God,' — * I believe in Je-
sus Christ,' and the like. But this elementary confession, thus
brief and incomplete as far as the express words went, seems
even before the •Apostles' death to have been expanded and
moulded into form, and in that form or type it has remain-
ed up to this day in the baptismal service. I say this was
done in the apostles^ days, because history bears witness to the
fact, calling it < the Qreedi' ^ tbe Apostles' Creed,' the treasure

VOL..U T

62 Docnism or tbb tbactatoss.

and legacy of faith which the apostles had left to their converts »
and which was to be preserved in the church to the end. Indeed,
St Paul, in bis first Epistle to the Corinthians, sospeaks o/it^ when
quoting part qfity viz. as that which had been committed to him,
and which be had committed in turn to his converts, (1 Cor. xv.
3.)*' (pp. 260, 261.) This brief mode of settling every thing is quite
amusing. The Creed which we now have was certainly put
into its present form by the apostles,,/^ some writers who lived
long after (for that is all the testimony we have) call it the Apos«
ties' Creed, and if this be not a sufficient proof, remember St
Paul himself has quoted it in 1 Cor. xv. 3, thougb he does not
say so.

Such a statement as this at the present day is really extraor-
dinary ; more especially, from one who professes an intimate ac-
quaintance with antiquity. But it is merely an echo of the state-
ments of some Romish writers ; and statements, be it remembered,
which are repudiated by the more learned members even of that
church. On this point, however, we shall have to speak at lai^e
in another place, to which' therefore I refer the reader. (S^
c. 4."

Let us now see how far we may depend upon the correctness
of their quotations from the Fathers. It is a favourite observa*
tion with Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble, that ** Tradition teaches,
Scripture proves." On the correctness or incorrectness of this
observation I say nothing here. My only concern jk)w is with
the following quotation from Athanasius introduced in proof of it.
** Athanasius," says Mr. Newman, ** in the following passage, dis^
tinguishes between Tradition as teaching, and Scripture as prov*
ing, verifying doctrine. • Our faith is correct, and is derived from
Apostolical teaching and the Tradition of the Fathers, being es*
tablisked ont of the New and Old Testaments.' (Ad Adelph. ^
6. )" (p. 385.) Mr. Keble, still more boldly shaping the passage
to his own mind, says, — ^St Athanasius more than once men-
tions a certain * form or stamp of the faith of a Christian,' by re-
currence to which doctrines maybe best tried,'and heresy re«>
pressed ; cmd tMs farm or stamp, he says, we receive by trip-
ditiony but are able to demonstrate it by the Scriptures.
Ep. ad A<ielpb. tom. i. 914, E. ;" adding /Mir/ of the sentence in
the original, (p. 124.) And in the next page he gives us tUs
translation of the portion he refers to, — <' < To us bek>nes the
right iaith, setting out from the apostolical teaching ana tra»
dition of the Fathers^ and confirmed both by the New and Old
Testament' Could be have said more clearly, ' Tradition teaches.
Scripture proves?'" (p. 125.)

Now this passage with its context stands thus ; — HfMt9 h i

imtH' ▼^ ^<» x^«^i|T«» Xty49W&9' .AifrT%iK»9 «*^ A0y«i #tv «iii T«f «A«^iiiif
r«»* JM( l3nr f nmf$tu% f p yis^-r^i g{f i ...••,«}« Air«rT«A4^p frot^ii*

rmfKi [1 Pet. iv. 1.] f9 3f IT«(vA«» yf»^§rrfi nf9'itx$fHf^t rnt ^««ep4«y

tAirf}« • • • * [I'ii- ii* 13*]' ^P* ^^ Adelph*

I give the portion of this passage, quoted by Mr. Newman and
Mr. Keble, stopped as in the editions preceding the Benedictine
and supported hj the authority of the learned Peter Nannius, a
Homan Catholic Professor at Louvain,^ I translate it thus,—
*^ But our faith is the Qrthodoz faith, both taking its rise from the
teaching of the Apostles,, and confirmed by the tradition of the
Fathers, derived both from the New and Old Testament ; th^ '
prophets saying, Send out thy Word and thy Truth, and. Behold
a virgin shall be with child, Slc, ; and (he tradition qfthe apos-
lies teaches us, Peter saying, * Christ therefore having suffered
for us in the flesh,' and Paul writing, < Looking for that blessed
hope, &C.' "

This passage, however, the Benedictine editors have stopped
80 as to make it, if possible, speak the views of Romanism, by
inserting a comma after ar^rc^^f, and thus connecting fitfim^vf^vm
with what follows, and translating ihe passage according to this
punctuation. Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble have followed in
their wake ; the latter having even gone so far as to translate the
passage, *^ the apostolical teaching and tradition of the
Fathersy^ as if it referred to the apostolical teaching of the
Fathers, a translation which the very position of the words whol-
ly forbids. Indeed I do not believe that they can point out any
passage in the Fathers in which the words, ** the teaching of the
apostles," or ^^ the apostolical teaching,*' are put for the report
we derive of that teaching from the Fathers. Now whether the
new Benedictine punctuation be correct or not, it is unnecessary
here to inquire, though it seems to me quite inconsistent with the
construction of the sentence. It is sufficient to observe, that the
immediate context shows what Athanasius means by ^* the teach-
ing of the apostles,^* viz. that which " the tradition of the
apostles T£AOHBS t»," in their toritings, the very passages from
Peter and Paul to whi<;h he refers as '< the tradition of the
apostles*' bein^ pointed out ; and therefore that the sense put upoa
his words by Sfr. Newman and Mr. Keble is far from what he
intended. But it is an old quotation of the Romanists against us,
from whom our opponents appear to have borrowed it without
even consulting the context*

t MfofUrt contra fides reoU ett, et ex doc^bt Apostolica et tradiiione Palnim
confiroiata, et Novo ei Veteri TettarnentOy cam et Propheta clamant, &c See
edition of Athanaaiut, pabliehed, Colon. 1686. vol. i. p. 169.

> TIm ptfiage, aecordhig to the old pimctaatioD, la predaely aeoordant with

64 DOCTRIHS OF THS TRACTAT0B8.

The obsenration of Mr. Keble as to a certain form or stttmp
of faith being here referred to, and said to be received by tradi-
tion, is perfectly tinacconntabie, for neither in the passage or the
context is there any thing of the kind, and not the less remarka-
ble from his placing a few words of the Greek original at the
foot of his page, as if he had really found his assertion in the
original. Indeed Mr. Keble himself, referring to the same pas-
sage in the next page, telb os that the terms in question do not
occur there. But unfortunately, again forgetting this, he in the
following page recurs to his first assertion as correct, and makes
it of considerable use to his argument, observing, *<This same
* form of the faith,'^r which as we have seen Athanasitis looked
to tradition^ he affirms elsewhere to have been," &c. (p. 126.)

Poor Athanasius \ This is indeed hard treatment of one who
in every page with laborious reiteration refers to Scripture as
that from which every individual is to satisfy himself of the truth.
It is quite astonishing, indeed, how any one at all acquainted vrith
the works of Athanasius can suppose that he is adducible in
favour of the views advanced by Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble.

The reader will observe that in this passage of Athanasius the
Scriptures of the apostles are called " the tradition of the apos-
tles." The word tradition is constantly used by the Fathers in
this sense, i. e. as significative of the Scriptures^ and this, as may
be supposed, has given rise to many perversions of their meaning,
which makes it very necessary for us to be on our guard against
being misled by scraps selected from their writings, in which the
word tradition occurs, and which are adduced in proof of the
value of ecclesiastical tradition, w'hen in fact they are applicable
only to the Scriptural tradition.

Thus Athanasius says, — " He that abides by the traditions
(t«/$ xt^ftt^tiurt^) is safe. And we exhort you, as we exhort our- ,
selves, to preserve the faith that has been delivered to usy (nfli
WKfrntoHitra* Tis^tf, the traditional faith.*') What a strong passage,
it might be said, in favour of tradition! And thus it has been

the view we defend, for that ** the tradition of the Fathers" is a eo^/irmator^ ar-
^ment for the trath of a doctrine derived from Scripture is what we maintain^
and this is all for which this passage could be fddueed. I would jost observe
also, that the word frufn^m is sometimes used for the writers of the Old Testament^
a sense which would well suit the construction of this sentence. It is so used by'
Hyppolytus the Martyr, who, speaking of the prophets, says, cwtm ym^ mw/tiArt
tf^iiTPut 01 fra/nfftf jutrnprta-fxiifoij (De Antiehristo, §^ 9. Op. ed. Fabr. 1716 — 18»
voL i. p. 5.) The word ia also used in a very similar seiwe, i. e. of the writer*
of the Holy Scriptures generally, by Cyril of Alexandria, who speaks of ihost
writings as, du rm aymf Trufv^fw ffvyypA^xt, (De 8. Trin. Dial. I. Op. Tom. S. P.
I. p. 388.) And by Cyril of Jerusalem, Aoi^roy /i nc Teic d«Mc >^^c tTan\6»/uar^
jcxi nnm(JM v^nta «uro ifjiir*fqtf ayytWy Ayimt jr^twefk ' Cat. 10. ^. 5. ed. Millea. pi^
228.

quoted by tbe JElcNnMUit& Bat wbeu we take It with its context,
we fiod that nothing is less meant than patristical tradition. It
is the tradition of Scripture, which alone is referred to, and the
expression " ths traditions," as thus applied, shows that the term
was more especially descriptive of Scripture. '

The whole passage stands thus, — ** For things great and diffi-
cult of apprehension are received by feith in God. Whence they
who have weak intellects fall away, unless they should be per-
suaded to abide in the faith, and avoid idle questions. Where*
fore the blessed Paul said, ' Without controversy great is the
mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh,* Slc, Since
therefore we have heard that some among you are troubled, and
desire tetters from us concerning the common faith, which was
introduced by the apostles, we write, that to search curiously
into it is the duty of few, but to hold the faith, of all who would
obey God. . . # . . For he who searches into things which are
above his ability is in imminent danger, but he who abides by the
traditions is safe. And we exhort you, as we exhort ourselves,
to keep the Jbith that has been delivered to us, and to turn
away from profane novelties of speech, and to enjoin this upon
ail, that they should fear to institute curious inquiries respecting
so great a mystery, and confess that God has been manifest in
the flesh according to the apostolical tradition (tup Air$rr^Xt»nf
ir«^i}«»if)/' De incam. Verbi Dei, init.

The whole passage is well worthy of notice, not only as show-
ing the patristical use of the word tradition, but also as showing
the different view which Athanasius took of the use of Scripture
to that which Mr* Newman advocates. The sum and substance
of this passage is, that it is the diity of the man of weak intellect
to go to Scripture, the scriptural tradition, and keep the faith as
THBRE delivered to us.

There is also another passage where both Mr. Newman and
Mr. Keble h^ve allowed themselves to follow an alteration slip*
ped withoiU notice into the punctuation of the text of Athana-
sius by the Benedictine Editors, where the sense is materially
changed in favour of Romish doctrine, and, moreover, the con*
strnction of the sentence unwarrantably tampered with. The
passage is in the letter teEpictetus,and relates to those who were
propae;atiiig the Apollinarian heresy, and is thus translated by
Mr. Newman, ** They ought to receive this ans>^er and nothing
beyond, <It is enough that these are not the doctrines of the
church nor of the Fathers.' " (p. 887.) Mr. Keble's translation
is in effect precisely the same. (p. 128.) And tbeq the passage
is adduced as a proof of the sufficiencj/ of church-tradition to
iatbfy the mind of the tmlb of a doctrine.

Now the passage as it stands in all the editions preceding the

r*

66 MCfBIlOB OF nttlB IVJkCVAfeM.

Beoedictiiie reaA th^is;— t« yttf ivrat pmn^ lusrv^iMi pmpxdf

isfKiii «Ti •»» Iflrri TtivTit «i|f K«^«Xf»i;f £«»Ai|Ti«f, «v3f rmvr» it XMTgfti

ipf^niwHf.^ L e. " For doctrines which are so manifestly uosound
it is opt right to expose more to view and make much of, lest
they should be considered by men who love to dispute as doubt-
ful points; or [i. e* or if you argue at all against them] it is suffi*
cient to give this answer only to such things, and to say, that these
are not the doctrines of the catholic church, nor was this the
mind of the Fathers."

Athanasius here very wisely no doubt advises the bishop to
whom he was writings not to hold disputes with those under him
concerning doctrines manifestly heretical, lest they should be
thought debateable points, but to say at once, These are not the
doctrines of the catholic church, and, therefore, I cannot allow
them to be publicly disputed about by those who are in the com*
munion of the church. But the Benedictine Editors by silently
altering the punctuation thus, umntwur Afxu «ti k. t. A. (leaving
no verb, be it observed, to the infinitives «t«^wm<«i and fi«if)
have thought to make Athanasius advise the bishop to tell the
heretics with whom he had to deal, that this was a sirFFiciBRT
proof against their doctrine, that it was not the true doctrine.
This emendation of tbe punctuation of Athanadus, Mr. New*
man and Mr. Keble have implicitly followed, ^and from it deduce
a sentiment completely opposite to the whole tenor of his writings.
I do not charge them with any unfairness in this, because they
were probably not aware of the alteration, but it shows the ne*
cessity of narrowly examining their quotations. And I must be
allowed to add> that there is another part of the same quotation
where it is not auite so easy to acquit them of partiality in their
translation. Why does Mr. Newman translate the words rnv
9V9€^% wt^rtiy « the reverent faith of the church .?" (p. 386.) And
Mr. Keble, " the Creed of the true religion V (p. 127.) Why
this partial translation to suit their own peculiar views? The
words are merely *' the orthodox faith." Mr. Kebie^s rendering,
moreover, is peculiarly unfortunate, implying that tbe heretics
were to be silenced by ** the Creed," when in the words immedi«
ately preceding it is stated, that the heretics in question boasted
of their adherence to the Nicene Creed. Nor is there any reason
why the words " the orthodox faith" here should not mean the
same as << the faith that has been delivered to us" in the last pas^
sage, where the words had a direct reference to Scripture.

1 Epift ad Kpict. prope init. ed. Col. 1666. torn. i. p. 684. 8t6 B«ii. ed. torn,
i. p. 903.

Bocntn Of tax nAOTi^roBs. 67

Ffurtfaer, what is the meaRing of the phrase ** the Fattiers''
ID this passage ? It refers exclusively to the Fathers assembled
at the Council of Nice, (as any reader of the context will see
at oDce, and as the phrase is often used both by Athanasius and
others,) to whose sentiments Atbanasius refers as sufficient for the
occasion, because the church in which these disputes were, and
indeed the disputants themselves, professed to receive their
Creed ; just as in the Church of England it would be a sufficient
answer lor a private bishop to make to any disputants upon
points settled by the public confession of the church, to say, I
cannot allow these matters to be disputed about by you who
profess to be members of the church, as if they wer^ debateable
points, when the church has already determined them and made
the reception of them essential to communion with her.

And hence we may observe, that even admitting the Benedic-
tine punctuation, the passage is^ not necessarily favourable to the
views of our opponents ; because the sufficiency of the testimo-
ny spoken of would refer not to its sufficiency for the establish-
ment of the truth in the abstract, but to its sufficiency for the
termination of the disputes spoken of.

This passage, then, leaves the question between us and the
Tractators utterly untouched.

We have already observed,* that the word tradition is fre-
quently used by the Fathers to denote Scripture, sometimes alone,
but more frequently connected with some word descriptive of
its author. Thus the Scriptural tradition of the New Testament
is sometimes called the Apostolical tradition, which refers to
the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament, and sometimes the
Evangelical tradition, significative of the Gospels of the Evan-
gelists, these two parts of the New Testament being generally
distinguished from each other by the early Fathers. On this sub-
ject we shall have to speak more fully in another place, but I
just notice it again here partly in order to put the reader on his
guard on so important a point, and partly as introductory to the
next passage to which I have to call his attention in the work of
Mr. Newman, — a passage which, coming as is does from one
who professes so intimate an acquaintance with the writings of
the leathers, is indeed most strange. But it quite explains how
it is that he thinks, the Fathers such defenders of ^* tradition."

The passage is as follows: — "He [i. e. Athanasius] concludes
with these words, in which the same distinction is made as has
already been pointed put between the traditioit of thechtjrch
as an antecedent argument, a/air plea, ordii^arilt sufersed-
lifo iprquiRv, and, on the other hand, when for one reason or

1 8ee pp. 18, S3 and (S4.

06 I>OCTBXVB or TSM TBACTATOBS^

another the inquiry has proceeded. Scripture as the only bash of
sound argument and conclusion. * I have written the above, be*
loved, though really it was unnecessary, for the Evangelical tra*
dition is sufficient by itself; but since you asked concerning our
faith, and because of tho^e who are desirous of trifling with their
theories, and do not consider that he who speaks out of his pri*
vate judgment speaks a lie, for neither the comeliness nor the glory
of the Lord's human body can be adequately expressed by the
wit of man, but we speak so far as we are able, viz. confess
what has been done, as it is in Scripture, and to worship the true
and living God, for the glory and acknowledgment of his love
towards man,' &c. (Contr. Apollin. i. 9, 11, 22, 6n.)" (p. 388.)

Mr. Newman, therefore, would have us suppose that the phrase
i Evmyytht»n irmpmi§rt§, the Evangelical tradition, means the
ti^adition qf the churchy and upon this extraordinary mistake
founds the observation that from this passage it is clear that
Athanasius thought that the tradition of the church is an ante*
cedent argument ordinarily superseding inquiry. If, then,
it should turn out that *' the Evangelical tradition" means Scrip*
. ture, why then, upon Mr. Newman's own showing, it is the opin«>
ion of Atbanasius thdt Scripture is the antecedent argument
ordinarily superseding further inquiry.

Whatever " the Evangelical traditipn" may be, it is clearly
the opinion of - Athanasius, that it is '^sufficient bv itself''
{mvTiL^itm) to teach the faith.

Now the fact is, that this phrase b a common phrase with the
Fathers for the Oospels, the tradition qf the Evangelists, as
distinguished from the ^cts and Epistles, which they call the
tradition of the •dpostles or the Apostolical tradition.

Thus Gregory Nyssen ; — " But the ailment from the inspired
volume upon the point in question each one may gather abundant*
ly from both Testaments. For many may easily be found in the
prophets and the law, and many both in the Evangelical and
•Apostolical traditions,^' (o EvmyYtXttum rt »4n AiFcrT$Xt»tni 9r«p«-
tcrtvt). De Virg. c. xi. ed. Par. 1615. tom. p. 679.

So Cyril of Alexandria ; — ** He would have them be gentle and
patient,accordin^ to the Evangelical traditions" (r«f £o«yyf a<*««
TTttpttitrtti') In Isa. c. Ixvi. ver. 5.

Other examples occur in Socrs^tes, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 7, and
in Balsamon ad. Can. 6. Concil. Nic. Sec.

And so Cyprian says, "Whence is that tradition? Does it
descend from Dominical and Evangelical authority, or does it
come from the commands and epistles of the Apostles ? For God
testifies that those things are to be done which are written . . .
. ., • If, therefore, either it is commanded in the Gospel^ or is con-
tained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles let that

jHHmtam of thk tbaotatobi. 69

divine aod holy tradition be observed If id any thing

the truth bas not been steadily maintained, let us return to the
Dominical original and the Evangelical and •Spoatolical tra"
Mion," (Ad originem Dominicam et £vangelicam et Apostoli-
cam traditionem revertamur.) Epist. 74. ad Pomp.

And what is stili more conclusive, if poffiible, we find Jerome,
when translating a passage of Polycrates, translating the words
T» r»«>yf A##», the Gospel, (referring to Scripture^ by *• evangelica
traditioi" the Evangelical tradition.'^

Indeed, I would ask Mr. Newman where he can find the
phrase used in the early Fathers to mean any thing else.

So that '* the Evangelical Hradition " means the Gospeb, and
the passage of Athanasius recoils with no little force upon Mr.
Newman's own hypothesis. The very context, indeed, shows
that the Scripture is referred to, and in the next treatise we
find more than once a phrase precisely similar, viz. • StMiyyf AiMf
•fHy the Evangelical rule, used to express the Gospels. (De
salut. adv. Christi adv. Appll. or Lib. sec. adv. Apoll.) And in
the Treatise *^ De pass, et cruce Dom." attributed to him, we
find the phrases • A,w$rr$xut6f A«y«(, " the apostolical saying," ap-
plied to a quotation from the Epistle to the Romans; r* £«r«yyt-
Xut0f Ttv t^vffv p«r«», <^ the evangelical saying of our Lord," i. e»
'Mhe saying of our Lord in' the Gospels," applied to a quotation
from St Matthew. And so the author of the Quaestiones et
Responsiones ad Orthodoxos (in the works of Justin Martyr) uses
the phrase £tf«yyiAf»«i( }<4y«^«<n, " the evangelical narratives," for
the Gospels. (Ed. Col, p. .484.) And Rufinus, — "Propterea
ergo Propheticis et Evangelicis atque Apostolicis vocibus nobis
praenunciatur hie error." (Expos, in Symb.;) that is, — " More-
over this error is foretold to us in the Prophedcal and Evangeli*
cal and Apostolical words." And as to the sentiment here ex-
pressed, we need go no further than the very first page of Atha-
nasius's works, to see its conformity with the views he has main-
tained elsewhere. '' As you desire," he says to the person whom
he was addres»ng, '* to bear me discpourse respecting the faith,
we will, as far as we are able, expound the Christian faith, which
indeed you might heive found from the divine oracles, (hf^fUfm
thr^ rttf Uwf x$ytm9 lvpi<r,) but politely desire to hear from others.
For the holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of them-
selves {uvtafnui) to deliver the truths {^f*% ▼»' f%% «x«#M»f «9r«iyyi-

Xi«f.)"»

Before we quit this passage, the reader should also notice an-
other point, viz. the translation, '<he who speaks out of hispri-

1 See RoQtb^ Reliq. Sacr. toI. i. p. 371.
' Ortt contr. gent. ed. Bea. torn. i. p. U

TO Docramx or ths nuoTAxois.

vate judgment speaks a lie." The introdactioD of ibt term
** private judgment'* here is totally unautAoriztdbytheorigi*
naif which isiurttf $}wf a«x#^ he who speaks out of his own
private fancies, and refers to the word translated by Mr. New-
man " theories*' (f^fv^inri inventions,) which bad just gone be-
fore. The two phrases, as Mr. Newman must see, are totally
different. The temptation no doubt was great to get a sly hit
at the right of private judgment out of Athanasius^ but thb
strikes one as a somewhat unscrupulous method of obtaining it.
I hope these are not specimens of the sort of translations of the
Fathers we have been lately promised.*

There is one thing more with ^hich the reader ought to be
acquainted before we proceed, viz. the practical meaning which
our opponents give to *' catholic consent ;" and what is considered
by them as a sufficient propf that any thing has been held
*' always, everywhere, and by all." Mr. Keble thinks that from
tradition *^ we know with tolerable certainty that Mekhisedek's
feast is a type of the blessed eucharist.*' What is the proof?
*<For this," he says, "see S. Cyprian, ep. 63, p. 149, ed. Fell ;
S. Augustin, De Civ. Dei. xviii. 20 ; S. Jerome, Ep. ad Marcel-
iam, t i. p. 123, ed. Frob. Basil. These, with the distinct ac-
knowledgment in the antient Roman liturgy, may perhaps be
considered sufficient to represent the sense of the Western
churches. Among the Greeks, S. Chrysostom on Gen. liv. clearly
implies the same construction. But the reserve maintained by
them on all liturgical subjects may account for their compara-
tive silence on this point, even supposing them to have received
the same interpretation." (p. 86.) Such is a specimen of the
consent that gives ^* knowledge with tolerable certainty." And
doctrines and statements so supported are to be published to the
church as indubitable apostolical traditions.

But, in truth, when we come to see what the notion of our
opponents is as to the nature of faith, the view to which their
system has driven them as to the character of the evidence upon
which faith is built, we shall feel less surprised at such state-
ments. It is almost impossible not to see that in patristical tra«
dition there is at least a deeree of uncertainty m to its apostolv
cal origin ; and consequently that there can be at most only
some degree of probability for faith to rest upon in such testi*
noony. Our opponents have clearly seen this, and hence, instead
of being deterred hereby from adopting it as a fit and adequate
foundation for faith, they have coolly and deliberately set about
to show that faith can never have more than probability to rest

i That their tranilationt are not alwaya to be troited in poiDle where they are
iotarefted haa been fuHy ahewn by an able writer in the Britiah Magazine for
May 1839, pp. 511—19.

POCTSimi OF THE TRACTAT0S8. 7 1

upon, and that in fact if there was certainty there could not be
faith, as if faith was belief on insufficient grounds. ** We, for our
part, [says Mr. Newman] have been taught to consider that faith
in its degree as well as conduct must be guided by probabilities,
and that doubt is ever our portion in this life. We can bear
to confess that other systems have their unanswerable arguments
in matters of detail, and that we are but striking a balance
between difficulties existing on both sides, that we are follow-
ing as the voice of God what on the wholb we have reason to
think such." (p. 129.) " According to English [!] principles,
faith has all it needs in knowing that God is our Creator and
Preserver, and that he MAY, IF IT SO HAPPEN, have spokeo
.... Doubt may even be said to be implied in a Christianas
faithJ^ (p. 103.) Nay, saith Mr- Keble, *^ evidence complete
in all its parts leaves no room for faith.^^ (p. 82.) And to
put an end to all doubt as to the doctrine they hold on this sub-
ject, Mr. Newman openly tells us, that " to accept revelation at
all '' " we have but probability to show at most, NAY, TO
BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT
CREATOR." (p. 09.)

Such is the conclusion to which the views of our opponents on
** tradition" have led them, and which it seems they can not only
contemplate with unconcern, but conrmiend to the adoption of
their readers. The authority of ** tradition" as a divine inform-
ant is, it appears, at all hazards to be maintained. The reader
may here see the doctrine to which the maintenance of such
views confessedly leads. In thb place I make no further observa-
tion upon it than to commend it to his serious attention, but shall
take an opportunity to consider it more fully hereafter.

Having thus, I hope, given the reader sufficient proofs of the
necessity of being at least on his guard in the perusal of these
works, and that even in points where he might have least ek-
tpecled it, I proceed in the next chapter to show the identity of
the doctrine of our opponents on this subject with that of the
Romanists.

72

CHAPTER m.

OOXPABieON OF THE DOCTRims XAIKTAIVED IN THB WOBKS ABOVE
MENTIONSD ON THB SUBJECT OF PATRI9TIGAL TKADITION WFTH
THAT OF THE SOXI0H CHUKOH*

After the explicit declaration of Dr. Pusej^ quoted in the
preceding chapter, that our controversy with Rome on this sub-
ject is not a doctrinal but a ^^purely historical" controversy, i. e.
relating only to the validity of some particular traditions, and
also some intimations of a very similar kind from Mr. Newman,
such as that ''we agre^ with the Romanist in appealing to anti-

Suity as our great teacher J'* (p. 47,) it may seem almost super-
uous to attempt io prove the identity of the doctrine maintained
by the writers whose views we have been considering, with that
of the Romanists. As, however, in other places they speak as
if there was some not inconsiderable difierence between their
views and those of the Romanists on the subject, and as suctf an
impression is likely to be entertained almost involuntarily by their
readers, from the fact of their being ministers of the Church of
England, it is desirable to show that the doctrines of the two par-
ties are precisely the same.

The reader will bear in mind that I am not now speaking of
the traditions received by either party, but of their doctrine
on the subject of tradition.

The doctrine on this point advocated in the works under con-
sideration may be summed up, as we have already observed, in
the five propositions which we have given in the preceding chap-
ter ; (pp. 4O9 41;) and these propositions represent precisely the
doctrine of the Church of Rome in this matter, as I shall now
proceed to show with respect to each of them seriatim.

I. That consentient patristical tradition, or '< catholic consent,"
is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in religion, and
consequently entitledi as to its stthstancCf to equal respect with
the Holy Scriptures. ,

IDENTICAL WITH THB R01CI8H. 78

'' We assert," saysBellarmipe, " that the whole necessary doc-
trine either coDcerniog faiih or manners is not contaiDed expli"
citly (txpressie) in the Scriptures ; and that conaeqtcently be*
yond the written word of God is required also the unwritten wprd
of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions. • • • They
l^i. e. the Protestants] think that if there were any apostolical tra-
ditions they do not now exist, that is, that there cannot be any
certain proof had of any apostolical tradition. • • • We^ on the
contrary, assert that there are not wanting certain ways and
methods by which apostolical traditions may be manifested. . . •
If the authority of an apostle when giving an oral precept is not
less than when giving a written one, there certainly is no temerity
in considering any thing unwritten equivalent to the written
word." {Which Jast observation is of course very true and ad-
mitted by all, and therefore to no purpose but to lead the reader
to misapprehend the views of the rrotestants ; but I notice it to
show how precisely the Tractators have echoed the statements of
the Romanists on this subject] (De Verb. lib. iv. c 3.) ^

The Council of Trent says, — '^ The most holy synod . . seeing
that the evangelical doctrine and polity are contained in the
written books and those unwritten traditions which were received
by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or, emanatmg
from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit,
and delivered down from hand to hand, have descended to us, fol-
lowing the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and vene-
rates with a like feeling of piety and reverence all the books as
well of the Old as of the New Testament, since one God is the
author of both^ as also traditions themselves, atf well those relating
to faith as those relating to mann^r^, as either uttered by Christ
or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic
church by an uninterrupted succession," (Cone. Trid. Sess. 4.)

And the rules given by Bellarmine for ascertaining such tra-
ditions are delivered by him thus;— ** The first rule is, When the
whole church embraces any thing as an article of feith which is
not found in the divine Scriptures, we must say, that that is de-
rived from the tradition of the apostles • . • . • The second rule
is, When the whole church observes any thing which none but
God could ordain, which nevertheless is nowhere found written,
it must bjs admitted that it was delivered (traditum) by Christ
himself and his apostles • . • • The third rule is, That which
has been observed in the whole church, and in all past times, is
justly considered to have been instituted by the apostles, although
it is of such a nature that it might have been ordained by the
church. • . * The fourth rule is. When all. the doctors of the
church declare with one consent that any thing descends from
apostolical tradition, either when assembted in a general council,

VOL. I. G

74 DOCTRimB OF THE TRACTATOBS

or writiog individually in their works, that is to be considered to

be an apostolical tradition The fifth rule is, That is to

be believed beyond doubt to descend from apostolical tradi-
tion which is considered to be such in (hose churches where there
is an entire and uninterrupted succession from the apostles.''^

It is hardly necessary to say that he adds the limitation, — <* We
admit no tradition that ii contr?iry to Scripture;*'* "we never
defend traditions that are at variance with the Scripture." '

The first four of these rules for ascertaining what is supposed
to remain to us of oral apostolical tradition are in effect the same
as those of Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble. That the fourth ac-
cords with the views of our opponents will not be questioned.
And so does the first practically. For when Bellarmine speaks
of the universal church holding this or that, he means not mere-
ly the present church, but the church as including the Fathers;
and both he and I believe, I might say^ all the best writers of
the Romish communion hold that the testimony of the Fathers
in their writings is necessary for the establishment of any thing
as having proceeded from the oral teaching of the apostles. The
examples given by Bellarmine on this rule show this, being the
perpetual virginity of the mc^ther of our Lord, and the number
of the canonical books^ for a proof of both which they would send
us to the Fathers. And he says, " That is called unwritten doc-
trine, not such as is nowhere written, but that which is not
written by its first author. As, for instance, the baptism of in-
fants. That infants are to b^ baptized is called an unwritten
apostolical tradition, because it is not found written in any apos-
tolical book, although it is written in the books of almost all the
antient Fathers." * And again, " Those rites only we receive as
apostolical which we can prove to be apostolical by firhn testi-
monies of the antients."* And one of his notes of the true church
is " agreement in doctrine with the primitive church.''

And Cardinal Perron distinctly lays down the catholic consent
of the primitive^ church as the test of truth in the way that our
opponents have. •* That then," he says, " shall remain truly uni-
versal and catholic that the most eminent Fathers of the times of
the four first Councils have taught in several regions of the earth ;
and against which none (except some persons noted for dissension
in the church) hath resisted, or that the Fathers of those ages do
testify to have been believed and practised by the whole church
in their times. And that shall remain truly antient and apostolic
that the Fathers of those ages do testify to have been observed by

1 De v. Dei. lib. !▼• e. 9.

8 Nee ollam tnditiooem admittimas contra Scriptiiram. lb. c 8.
. s Nee enim tradiiiones com i^criptura pagnantes.anquam defendimuf. lb. c. 1 1 .
4 De V. Dei. iv. c 2. « De V. Dei. iv. c. 3.

IBETVTICAL WITH THE B03U8H. 75

tbe whole church, not a8 a thing sprung up in their time, but as
a: thing derived down to them either from the immemorial succes-
sion of former ages or from the express tradition of the apostles."
And he takes the period of the four councils (he tells us) because,
if the period taken be much shorter, '' there remain so few
writings of that date" that ** the face of tbe antient doctrine
and practice cannot evidently appear to be therein represented."
(Letter to Casaubon, inserted at the beginning of his << Replique,"
&c.) So that the tradition of which these authors speak must
derive its proofs from the writings of the early Fathers, and be,
in fact, as that of our opponents is, patristical tradition. I do not
deny, but am well aware, that some writers among the Roman-
ists have not apparently owned the necessity of finding the wh{>le
doctrine of the church in the Fathers, but have seemed to sup-
pose that some part of the oral teaching of the apostles might yet
be unwritjten, ajul in the possession of the church, so that the
church might at any time declare a, doctrine not opposed to Scrip-
ture or what is called the unanimous consent of antiquity, to have
come down by successive oral delivery from the apostles ; and
that upon her testimony, she being the keeper of the oral teach-
ing of the apostles, we are bound to believe such doctrine to be
apostolical. But this is not the doctrine of such men as those we
have quoted. They clearly held, at any rate in theory, with our
opponents, that the oral teaching of the apostles was to be sought
for in the written patristical report of it- And even in the case
«f the others, I suspect it would be generally found, that any ap-
parent difTerence in their statements arose only from our affixing
a difierent sense to the phrase oral tradition to what they did,
and supposing it to mean a tradition that has never been put
in xoritingt instead of a tradition rwt put in writing by its
€iuthor.

Hence it was said by Mr. Eyre, in his " Reply to the Rev. R.
Churton," — ** Had you examined the expositions of thfeir faith as
stated in councils, by universities, divines, &c. you would have
learnt that the uninterrupted and common consent of aliases was
requisite to constitute tradition a rule of faith." . . . '' lou do
not seem to comprehend what is meant by the unwritten word of
God, or oral tradition. You suppose, if it be upon record (to use
your own words) it ceases to be oral tradition or the unwritten
word of God. No such thing. It is not called the unwritten
word of God because it is nowhere committed to writing, as I told
you before, but because it is not written in the inspired books of
Scripture. And though we should admit oral tradition in the
«en86 you take it, yet every discriminating article, either as to
faith or morality, we can readily pro^e from tradition in the sense
I Tiave explained it.'* (pp. 121, 2.)

f6 DOCtSIlCS OF THS TBACTATOBS

And flo it was said bj one of the Roman Catholic speakers in
the ** Downside discussion," — ** Secure in these assurances [i. e-
Matt, xxviii.. 20; &c.] the church collates the toriiings of the
Fathers, and judging by their morally unanimous testimony, it
discerns true traditions from false.*' * And the Council of Trent
enjoins* that no one shall interpret Scripture contrary to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers (contra unanimem consensum
Patrum.) And Pius IV. orders all the clergy and regulars of
every Order to take an oath that they will never understand nor
interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of
the Fathers. •

The fifth rule, understood with the limitation which of course
was intended, viz. that the point established by it be not contra-
dicted by other similarly obtained testimony, (for otherwise this
rule would be contradictory to the preceding,) is also in perfect
accordance apparently with the views advocated in the works
under consideration. [ am not speaking of the use made of this
rule by the Church of Rome, who, boasting that she is the only
church remaining that has preserved the apostolical succession
sanctifies by this rule all her impositions, shutting out by her ex-
clusive claims the possibility of contradiction ^ but I speak of the
rule in itself, and according to its fair application. And if I
rightly understand the doctrine of" episcopal grace** as delivered
in these works, it completely establishes the truth of this rule.
" •Apostolical or episcopal grace,''* says Mr. Keble, " is by God^s
ordinance the gtmrdian of sound doctrine ; the spirit abiding
in Timothy is to watch incessantly the deposit or trust of divine
truth left in his charge ; and where the one, the successiony fails,
there, as this verse would lead us to expect, and as all church
history, proves, the other, the truth of doctrine, is immediately
in imminent jeopardy." (p. 44.)

But, however this may be, the theory of the two on the sub-
ject of tradition is evidently precisely the same ; and the power
which the Church of Rome in every age assumes of declaring
what is and what is not an apostolical tradition, id a power limited
in theory by these rules, it is true that in the application of
these rules the Church of Rome may be "neglectful of antiquity"
for the' sake of maintaining some favorite doctrine or rite, as Mr.
Newman justly charges upon her, but so may others also, and
some think that the writers of the Tracts for the Times may in
some points be included in the number; nay, the Church of

1 DowM. diicusflioo, p. 70. ' Seas. 4

3 Nee earn [i. e. Scriptaram] anqaam nisi Juxta unanimem consenanm Palrom

accipiam et interpretabor. Boll. Pii IV. «up. form. Joram. prefix, ad Gaiath«

Concil. Trid.

l^DSin'ICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 77

Rome may (as Bdlarmine does for her in the passage we have
been quoting) claim to be the only church remaining that pos-
sesses the apostolical succession. But these matters are quite
distinct from her doctrine of tradition* They may lead her into
error in her application of that doctrine, but they are quite dis-
tinct from and independent of it^ The doctrine b precisely the
same as that advocated by the Tractatora. ,

Mr. Newman has deVoted hb second lecture to the subject of
<< Romanism as neglectful of antiquity." The charge is a just
one, but I cannot think that Mr. NeWman has there proved it ;
for all which his observations go to prove is, that some individual
members of the Church of Home have without difficulty con-
ceived themselves to have found in the Fathers precisely what
their prejudices led them to wish for.

Now did it never strike him that if his own great argument is
just, viz. that the meaning of Scripture must ne uncertain and
obscure, because it is quoted in support of opposite doctrines, this
is one of the best proofs he could have given of the uncertainty
and obscurity of patristical tradition, that the Fathers ca,n so rea-
dily be adduced in favour of contrary views?

in making these remarks, I would by no means be understood
to deny that practically the system of the Romish church is much
worse than a faithful adherence to such a rule of judgment would

I>roduae. On the contrary, we are at issue with Rome, not mere-
y as to her theory of tradition, but also as to her allegation that
primitive antiquity is on her $ide. We deny altogether that pa-
tristical testimony taken as a whole is in her favour, and claim it
in behalf of the doctrines of our own church, and therefore are
opposed to Rome, as it respects the /act what doctripesand prac-
tices ha\*e the support of antiquity. And to this part of our con-
troversy with her our opponents would limit our whole contro-
versy with her, and still further reduce even this part of it, by
admitting doctrines repudiated both by the authoritative docu-
ments and the best divines of our church, and claiming for them
with the Romanists the support of antiquity. We may say of
them, therefore, what both we and they agree to say of the
Romanists, that their doctrines are worse than a faithful adhe-
rence to their oum rule would produce; ever remembering that
besides this controversy a» to the matter of fact, we have another
and a more important with them, as to what is the sole divine
rule of faith and practice.

IL That such tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-
revealed rule of faith and practice.

In addition to the extracts given under the last head, I subjoin
the following, —

'< I assert," says Bellarmine, <' that Scripture, although not

78 DOOTBINB OF THB TBACTATOBS

composed principally ^ith the view of its being a rule of faith, is
nevertbek^ a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule.
For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God's revela-
tion made to the church, which is distributed into two partial
rules, Scripture and tradition.'**

And so tbe Tridentine Catechism says, — ** The whole of the
doctrine to be delivered to the faithful is contained in the word of
Grod, which is distributed into Scripture and traditions."'

III. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and
practice, on account of the defectivefness of Scripture, for that
(1) though it does not reveal to us any fundamental articles of
faith or practice not noticed io Scripture, Holy Scripture con-
taining, that is, giving hints or notices of, all the fundamental
articles of faith and practice, it, is yet a necessary part of the
divine rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture,
and as giving the full development of many articles, some of
which are fundamental^ which are but imperfectly developed in
Scripture : and, (2) it is an important part of that rule as convey-
ing to us various important doctrines and rules not contained in
Scripture.

The former of these two propositions includes two points ; the
Jirst, that Holy Scripture contains all the fundamental articles of
faith and practice ; the second, that nevertheless it is to be con-
sidered as even in these only a part of the rule of faith and of the
divine rule of practice, the other part being tradition as its inter-
preter, and as giving a sufficient development of those articles.

On the first of these points, Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble both
assert that it is not held by the Church of Rome. With how
little reason the following extracts will show.

** There are two things,'' says Bellarmine, " to be particularly
observed .... The first is, that there are some things in the
Christian doctrine ets well of faith as of morals, that are in
themselves (simpliciter) necessary to all for salvation, such as is
a knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles' Creed, likewise a
knowledge of the ten commandments and certain sacraments.
The rest are not so necessary, that without an explicit knowl-
edge and belief and profession of them a man cannot be saved,
if only he have a ready mind to receive and believe them when
they shall have been legitimately propounded to him by the
Church. .... Observe, secondly, that those things which are in
themselves (simpliciter) necessary, the apostles were in the habit
of preaching to all; but of other things they did not deliver

iDe V«D. ir. c. 12.

9 Omaii doctrinsB ratio, que fidelibos tradenda sit, Terbo Dei contioetar, quod
n 8c ri ptaram traditionesque dietributam eaU' Cat Trid. Pnsf. §. lix.

imRITICAL WITH THX BCMCIiH. 79

all to all mcn^ but some of tbem to all, tho§e, namelj, vrbich
were of use to alU some to the prelates, bishops, and presbyters

only* These things being observed, I assert, that

all those things were written by the apostles which are neces*
sary to all, and which they tbemselYes bad openly preached to
all without distinction ; but that of other things not all were
written."' Albd further on be says, (going quite as far as, if not
beyond, even our opponents, themselves in his admissions on this
point,)^** I assert, that of all those articles which relate to the
nature of God, there exist proofs (testimonia) in the Scriptures,
and that we may be fully and clearly instructed concerning
those articles from the Scriptures if we take them in their right
sense."*

And, like our opponents, he repudiates with indignation the
charge made against the Romanists by the Protestants, of under*
valuing Scripture. ** It is usual," he says " with them, [i. e.
the Protestants] to treat the matter a» if they defended the
Scriptures only, and we defended traditions only, nor cared whe-
ther traditions were agreeable to Scripture or contrary to Scrip-
ture. But it is not so : for we put a higher value on Scripture
(Scripturam pluris facimusj than they do; nor admit any
tradition against Scripture."*

From the two former of these passages, then, it is e\ident that
the more learned Romanists hold that all those doctrines the
belief of which is essentially necessary to salvation, including
particularly the articles in the Apostles' Creed, are contained in
the Scriptures. There is, indeed, an intimation that there must
also be a willing mind to embrace those points which may be
propounded for belief by the church, but then it must be recol-
lected that the Church of Rome does not profess to introduce
new doctrines, but only to inculcate those which are derived
either from Scripture or that church-tradition which (like the
Tractators) it receives as apostolical. That is, the concession
here made that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to
Salvation is accompanied by the requirement that that is also to
be believed which the church propounds as an apostolical doc-
trine derived from tradition; a demand which seems to me to be
equally made by the Tractators.
And when it is intimated that what is propounded by the

1 Thif ooUoo of there being a reeerTe obserred by the •poetlee in the comma-
nication of tellgioas knoirfedge, and of eome msttere haTing been committed by
them more especially to the custody of the clergy, haa aieo been embraced by oar
opponents, and an exhortation given by them to the present charch to practise
a similar reserve ! See Tract 80, *< On reserve in oommmnicating religious knowl-
edge."

« De V. D. iv. c. U. 8 lb. * lb, c 8.

80 DOOTBINB OF THS TBACTA'DORS

church is a necessary article of fiiith, it is not meant that the
matter of it is in itself a necessary article of faith, but that a
direct rejection of what the church delivers from "tradition" as
divine revelation is a mortal sin. As it is said by a **^ learned and
esteemed writer" (as be is called by Chalmers) of the Romish
communion, viz. Abraham Woodhead,^ "Fundamental, indeed,
they [the Romanists] call sometimes all points dfeAned by the
church's councils, and hold them necessary to be believed for
attaining salvation; but not necessary in such a sense as ratione
medii necessary ; or absolutely extra quas (creditas) non est
saluSf but only necessary to be believed upon supposition of a
sufficient proposal of them made to any person that they have
been so defined .... because if after such proposal and suf-
ficient notice given him of their being defined he believe them
not, he now stands guilty, in this his disobedience to his supreme
spiritual guides, of a mortal sin (nnrepented of) destructive of his
salvation." " The churches anathema in many of her canons
seizeth on a person not so much for the matter of his error,
though this not denied to some degree hurtful to him, and dimin-
ishing his perfection in the faith, as for the pertinacy of his
erring, and the contumacy and perverseness of bis will, disobey-
ing the church and his spiritual superiors, sufficiently manifest-
ing the contrary truth to be her doctrine and a portion of the
Christian faith.'*^ A,nd so strongly is this held by them that their
learned Bishop Fisher, who Mr. Newman tells us' is " as fair a
specimen of the Roman controversialist as could be taken," says^
— " The doctrine of purgatory being necessary to be believed of
all men, it is not credible but that it may be proved by Scrip-
ture."*

Hence the Romanists do not deny the sufficiency of the doc-
trines contained in the Holy Scriptures for salvation, but holding
that they possess an unwritten word of God in that which claims
to be apostolical tradition, and that what they propound as a
church from that source ought to be received as such by the
faithful, they hold unbelief in such propositions to be a mortal sin,
as being a deliberate rejection of a divine testimony, and so far
that a belief in them is necessary to salvation. What the Ro-
manists deny with respect to the sufficiency of the Scriptures in

1 ** Among the polemic writers of the ee^enteenth century, few are more gene-
rally read or reipected than the eelebrated Abraham Woodheadi/'— Charles Bat-
ter.

2 Account of doctrine of Roman Catho'ics concemiog the Ecclesiastical Ooide
in Controversies of lleligion. By R. H. Second Edition, 167S, 4to. (pp. 246, 8.)

* Lect p. 90.

^ Cam doctrine pnrgatorii sH omnibas scitu necessaria, noh est credibile, illam
non posse probari es Scriptoris. Adv. Lath* Art. 18. See Bp. Morton's Prot.
Appeal, I. 3. ^. 13. p. 15.

IDENTICAL WITH THE BOMItH. 81

N

the fundamental points, is only that v^hich our opponents denj
concerning it in the second part of the position under considera-
tion, viz. that in these points Scripture is to be considered the
l^hole of the rule, being, as they think» only a part of it, the
other part being tradition as its interpreter.

** We asseifr says Bellarmine as above quoted, ** that there is
not contained in the Scripture, in express terms, (expressej the
whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or concerning
^manners ; and therefore that beyond the written word of God is
required also the unwritten word of Grod, that is, the divine and
apostolical traditions."^ ^* Scripture is very often ambiguous and
obscure, so that unless it be interpreted by sonie one who cannot
err, it cannot be understood ; therefore it is not sufficient ai^ne.
. . . . . It is to be observed that there are two things in Scrip-
ture, the written words and the meaning contained in them . « .

... Of these two the first is possessed by all the second

is not possessed by all, nor can we in many places be certain of
the second, but by the addition of tradition.'^'

Comparing, then, these negative with the former affirmative
propositions, we find that what Bellarmine denies with respect
to the Scriptures, as to the fundamental articles of faith and
practice, is only that they contain them so expressly or expicitly'
as to render unnecessary what is called the unwritten word*
That is, there is asserted to be an obscurity in Scripture which
needs the aid of the unwritten word to clear it up. And this is
all which the Romanists deny to the sufficiency of Scripture in
the necessary points, as is more fully stated in the work to which
I have just alluded. "As for the sufficiency or intireness o{
the Scriptures for the containing all those points of faith that are
simply necessary of all persons to -be believed for attaining sal-
vation, Roman Catholics deny it not; but only deny such r clear*
ness of Scripture in some of those as Christians cannot mistake

or pervert Though Catholics maintain several credends

that are not expressed in Scriptures necessary to be believed
and observed by Christians after the church's proposal of them
as tradition apostolical^ amongst which is the canon of Scrips
tnre; yet they willingly concede that all such points of faith as
are simply necessary for attaining salvation, and as ought ex-
plicitly by all men to be known in order thereto, either ratione

I D« V. D. IT, c. 3. 9 lb. c. 4.

3 The inference at to the necesrity of tradition, shows that the word exfireae
mast be taken to include both a formal and virtual expre$non of the doctriDes^
io qoestioB. Words fairer to the Protestant Tiew, therefore, might have been
used, because the Protestant doctrine is that all sach points are contained in
dcriptore either ezpresslj on Tirtnally, in soch a way at to be dedncible thence
by ^rect and neceftary inference.

83 DOCTBIXK OF THK TZACTATOBI

medii or prcecepti, aa the doctrines collected in the three
Creeds, the common precepts of manners and of Ike mart ne-
cessary sacraments, Bic, &tg contnineil in the Scriptures; con-
tained thereiDt either in the conclusion itself or in the principles
from whence it is necessarily deduced. [He here refers for proof
irrnine, SUpleton, F. h isher, T|^nas Aquinas,
] Therefore the church from time to time
concerning such points, defines it out of the
1 Scripture. And the chief tradition, the ne-
of which is pretended by the church, is not
iny additional doctrines descended front the
■a Scripturas, L e. such doctrines as have not
at hast in Scripture ; but is the preserving
K primitive sense and church-explication of
en in the Scriptures, but many times not there
which traditive sense of the church yon may
igainat Arianism in the first Council of Nice.

it IS noi ihe deficiency of Scripture as to ail the main,

and prime, and universally necessary- to-be-known articles of
faith, us if there were any necessity that these be supplied and
completed with other not written traditional doctrines of
faith, that Catholics do question; but such a non-clearness of
Scriptures for several of these points as tliat they may be mis-
understood, (which non-clearness of them infers a oeceseity of
making use of the church's tradition for a true exposition and

sense,) is the thing (hat they assert I say then ; not

this. Whether the main, or if you will, the entire body of the
Christian faith, as to all points necessary by all to be explicitly
believed, be contained Ihere, [L e- in the Scriptures]; hut this ;
Whether so clearly that the .unlearned using a right diligence
cannot therein mistake, or do not need therein another guide,
is the thing here contested." {pp. 136 — 9.

The Romanists therefore a£Grm, as we do, that Holy Scripture
contains all things which are in themselves necessary to salvation,
but add, like the Tractatorfe, that it contains them obscurely^
and so as to render it necessary for us to have some other authori-
tative guide to point them out there ; and they hold that we have
such a guide in "tradition," which is, they say, an unwritten
word of God, and (he authoritative interpreter of the written
word, and that from it we also derive some supplementary arti-
cles of faith and practice; to which they add, (hat when these
latter articles are legitimately propounded to the faithful by the
church, they are binding upon the consciences of men, which, if
their views of " tradition" and " the church" are correct, is
undeniable.

lDff3mCAL WITH TBC SOXIdH. 81

Now whether the Tractatore agree with the Romanists on this
last point is a matter not worth considering here, because it is not
relevant to our present subject ; but it is evident, at least, that
in all other respect? these views are precisely the same with
those advocated in the works under consideration.

Mr. Keble, ^erefore, is altogether mistaken in imputing to the
Romanists tharthey hold " tradition of the substance of doctrine
independent of Scripture, and purporting to be of things ne-
cessary to salvation." (p. 71.) And Mr. Newman, in saying,
<* We differ from the Romanists in this, not in denying that tra*
dition is valuable, but in maintaining that by itself and without
Scripture warrant it does not convey to us any article necessary
to salvation." (p. 870.)

When the Romanists use the expression that Holy Scripture
does not contain all the articles of the Christian faith necessary
to be believed, they are speaking not with reference to any sup-
posed insufficiency in Scripture as to containing all the doctrines
essentially necessary to salvation, but to the necessity of belief
in that which they, as the church, pronounce \xi be an apostolical
tradition, on pain of committing a mortal sin. If in this view of
the extent of church-authority there is any difference between
our opponents and the Romanists, yet nevertheless as to the place
and value to be assigned to Scripture and tradition respectively,
the views of the two are evidently identical ; and how near they
approximate to each other on this very point of church-authority
in enforcing tradition, we may judge by the extracts already
given from Mr. Newman in the former chapter.^

And it is well worth the consideration of our opponents, and
those who are disposed to agree with them, how far their charges
against the Church of Rome for affirming things to be apostolical
traditions which are not so, go to prove the uncertainty atten-
dant upon all practically attainable declarations of **the church"
in (he present day, as to what are apostolical traditions, and still
driQF^ upon such declarations when made by individuals.

The second of the two propositions we are now considering,
viz: —

That patristical tradition is an important part of the divine
rule as conveying to us various important doctrines and rules
not contained in Scripture, —

Is thus advocated oy Bellarmine. He remarks that tradition
is necessary because there are many points which we ought not
to be ignorant of, and which yet are not contained in Scripture, in-
stancing, among the other examples which he gives, the doctrines
of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, (the example

1 8ee pp. 43, et teq. oboTe.

84 DocTSiSB or the tractatobs

me&tioDed by Mr. Newman,) purgatory, and the preclice of in-
fant baptum.'

Hertce be Bays, " I affirm that Scripture although

it was not written principally with a view of its being a rule
of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith— not the entire but a par-
tial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or
God's revelation made to the church, which is divided iuto two
partial rules. Scripture and tradition. And truly Scripture,
inasmuch as it is a rule, bas in consequence this property, that
whatever it contains is necessarily true and to be believed, and
whatever is contrary to it is necessarily false and to tie rejected :
but inasmuch as it is not the entire but a partial rule, the conse-
quence is, that it is not a rule for all things, and moreover, that
there may be something relating to the faith which is not con-
tained in it. And in this way ought the words of St Augustine
to be understood. For he nowhere says, that Scripture is the
only rule, but says, that Scripture is the rule by which the
writings of the antient Fathers ought to be examined, that we
may receive those things which are agreeable to Scripture, and
reject those things which are opposed to Scripture.'"

Now, I must say, that the estimate we should form from the
remarks of Bellarmine in this place of the value of tradition as
supplementary to Scripture, would fall below that derived from
the observations of Mr. Kehte on the same point, quoted pp. 37 —
38 above.

The fourth position, vii : —

IV. That patristical tradition is a necessary part of the divine
rule of faith and practice, because of the obscurity of Scripture
even in some of the fundamental articles, which malces Scripture
insufficient to teach us even the fundamentals of faith and prac-

ith that of Bellarmine when speaking of the

idition.

le says, "it is necessary not only to be able to

It also to understand it. But very often Scrip-

and obseure, so that unless it be mterpreted by
rr, it cannot be understood: therefore it is not
Examples are numerous. For the equality of
a, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the
on as from one original, original sin, the descent
I, and many similar things are deduced indeed
riptures, but not so easily but that if we could

on the ground of Scripture testimonies only,
cwtroversies with froward oppooenti would Qever be brought to

1 D« Tub. Dm. lib. iv. e. 1. S lb. e. 13.

IDlimOAL WITH THB SOKIfH. 85

AH end. For it is to be observed, that there are two things in
Scripture, the written words and the sense contained in them.
The words are as it were the scabbard, the sense is the sword
itself of the Spirit. Of these two the first is possessed bj all,
for whoever knows his letters can read the Scriptures ; but the
second is not possessed by ally nor can we in many places be cer-
tain of the second, unless tradition come to our aid."^

With this agrees also the quotation which we have given
above from Woodhead. (See pp. 81, 2.)

In correspondence with the fifth position^ viz.-^

v. That it is only by the testimony of patristical tradition that
we are assured of the inspiration of Scripture, what books are
canonical, and the genuineness of what we receive as such, — >

Bellarmine, in describing the fourth, fifth, and sixth uses for
which tradition is necessary, maintains as follows; — ^^^ Fourthly,
it is necessary to know, that there exbt certain truly divine
books, a truth which certainly cannot be obtained in any way
from the Scriptures. For although Scripture may say, that the
books of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, yet I cannot be-
lieve this for certain, unless I should previously have been brought
to believe that the Scripture, which says this, is divine. For in
the Alcoran of Mahomet we every where read that the Alcoran
itself was sent by God from heaven, and yet we do not believe
it Therefore, thii so necessary article, namely, that there is
some divine Scripture, cannot be sufficiently proved from Scrip-
ture alone. Therefore, since faith is foutided upon the word of
God, (nitatur verbo Dei,) unless we have an unwritten word of
God, we can have no faith. . . . Fifthly, it is not sufficient to
know that there is a divine Scripture, but it behoves us to know
which it is; H thing which cannot in any way be had from the
Scriptures. . • • • Sixthly, it behoves us also not only to know
which are the sacred books, but also in particular that those we
have are those books . . . which certainly cannot be known
from the Scriptures. . . . If it be so, then Scripture is not suffi-
cient alone. . . • For if it be left destitute of this unwritten
tradition and the testimony of the church, it will be of little ser-
vice. Moreover^ %f this tradition has been able to come down
to uSf why cannot others also have come down in the same
wayr*

And hence one of the most common arguments with the Roman-
ists, as with our opponents, is, that having received Scripture
upon this testimony, we ought not to object to receive the doc-
trines that may come down to us upon this testimony.' I should

lib. c4. zlb.

« 8ee the << Guide in CotttroTonies,'* by R. H. p. 366; Eyre*! Reply to Chor-
ton, pp. 117— 119; 4cc4

VOL. 1. H

80 POCRrRINB OF TSB TBACXVIXOfA

addy bowtver, that there are Bome/eWf even ampag the Roomn-
istSy who take a sounder view oo this pointt and believe the au-
thority of the Scripture, independently of the judgment of the
church ; as, for iostancci the learned Huetius^ in his '' Evangelical
Demonstration."*

Whether, then, we r^ard the nature and character of patris-
tical tradition, the place and value to be assigned to the Scrip-
turesy or the purposes for which that tradition is supposed to be
necessary, the views advocated on ^ these points in the works
under consideration, are precisely identical with| those of the
Church of Rome. In some minor and unimportant points con-
nected with this subject, there may be a little difference of opin-
ion, as there is, in fact, among the Romanists themselves. For
instance, some of the reasons given by Bellarmine (cb. 4) in proof
of the necessity of tradition, may not be adopted by the authors
under consideration. But the do<;trine of tradition, as it may be
called, is evidently involved and comprised in the points we have
just been considering, and in these there is clearly a perfect agree-
ment between them and the Romanists.

The doctrine, as above stated, is charged upon the Romanists,
and refuted, in a Treatise which I would strongly recommend to
Ihe notice of the reader, namely, Placette's ''Incurable Scepti-
cism of the Church of Rome," translated and published hy
•Archbishop Tenison^ and inserted by Bishop Gibson in his Pre-
servative against Popery, where the author shows the insufBciency
of all the various grounds on which the Church of Rome professes
to rest her faith.^

The general agreement between our opponents and the
Romanists may be still further confirmed by a comparison of
their views with a dissertation on Tradition, given in a Roman
Catholic work, published a few years ago, on the Fathers ;' and
th^ reader may observe not only a remarkable similarity in the
views advanced as to the point now in question, but also some
rather curious coincidences in the ybrm 0/ expression. If Mr.
Newman had seen this treatise, it might have been well for him
to have directed our attention to it, as containing, though mixed
with some things respecting the Pope, in v^hich, perhaps, he could
not agree, a much more lucid statement of the matter than he
has given us. In the treatise we find it placed before us in a
clear and precise manner, as if the author was not afraid to let
his readers fully see its length and its breadth ; £0 that any one

1 See Plecette*8 Incurable Boepticism of the Church of Rome, c. 2.

2 See particularly cc. 2, 3, and 30-^27.

> LuxPBB Histor. TheoK^Crit. de riti. See. Patram. Aag. Vind. 1783, Ae.
13 ▼. 8to. This work if « aompilatioii from Tarioof woriu on the FathMi, The
diieertation above alluded to ia principaUj taken from Maaniet.

mnmoikL wimiSBBOHinb 99

vrho reads it sees nt onee fvhat he is caOed upon ta esibra€e%;
t^hereas, in Mr. Newman's work it is so mixed up with such
names as Stillitigfl^et> Butler, and others, and such ezpressione
of regard for the doctrine of the Church of England, and abhor-
rence of certain practides of the Ronuinists; in a word, the
poison is so spread out in e/^/Ini/en'ma/ portions through the work,
and gilded with Protestant names, that the greater part of his
readers would have but a very indistinct notion of what they had
been imbibing, and still less of the consequences to which it must
lead them. 1 will not say, however, that Mr. Newman has not
herein judged skilfully of the means best likely to attain the
end he has in view, of bringing the English Ohurch to a recep?
tion of his doctrine ; and we find from Mr. Froude's << Remains,"
published by Mr. Newman, that the value of prudence in the
mode of bringing forward their doctrines, is fully estimated by at
least some of our opponents.

I shall now give a few extracts from this dissertation, which ii
written more particularly on Irena^us.

*' That the sacred Scriptures are the words of God, and a cer*
tain and immutable rul^ of ^ truth, to which tiothing must be
added, and from which nothing must be taken away, Irenaeus
most rightly teaches. Nevertheless, that all the words of God
are not expressly contained in them, but that the apostles, as the
ambassadors and heralds of Christ, taught other things which
they never consigned to writing, he not less clearly declares."
And then, after having quoted some passages from Irenaeus, (lib.
8, cc. 3, 45,J he adds, — " From which these things evidently folr
low ; first, tnat the very worst of all the heretics acknowledged
and cof\fessed that the Scriptures were ambiguously expressed <;
that is, were sometimes obscure, and admitted of several senses;
secondly, that the meaning of the obscure passages was to be
sought from tradition, not that which was written, but that which
was delivered orally. This Irena&us blames not,^ nay, in what
follows, approves oi, as we shall presently see. Thirdly, that
tradition h fuller than the Scriptures, and distinct from them, as

being their interpreter But the medium, and as it were

canal, through which the apostolical tradition has come down to
us uninjured, is the succession of bishops lawfully ordained in the
catholic church.*'

And in a subsequent note (p. 348) he tells us, " If these tradif-
tions were uncertain," the genuineness of the books of Scripture
would itself be uncertain. For whatever arguments the Pro-
testants adduce for these are abx> cf force toprove the certainty

t Uofw far ttoM is trcM w« thall Mm htrealter, v/hta w« oome to ftiqaire into tbb
^entimeiiti of Iraosos oi^ thii matter. (See c 10.)

iS Doowmw or ram ruk^tArmui

and BtahiUty of tradUiany* (Nam argamettta i}WBCiiiK|«e qom
Protestantes pro hb adfenint etiam pugnant pro traditioDis certH
tudine et firroitate.) Just as Mr. Newman tells us that, ^ what-
ever e^lanatioiu the Protestant makes in behalf of the pre-
eervation of the written word^ will be found applicable in the
theory to the unwritten^* (p. 46A

And in the latter part of the Treatise, we have the following
marks given us of apostolical tradition. First, the negative mark^
that is, those that show a thing not to be an apostolical tradition^
being, *'(1.) Every tradition that is clearly opposed to Holy
Scripture, is not divine. (2.) A tradition contrary to a tradition
known to be divinci is not divine. (3.) Every tradition that is
contrary to the common consent of the Fathers and the definition
of the churchy is not divine. (4.) A tradition, the origin of which
was clearly subsequent to the times of the apostles, is not divine.
(5.) A tradition, respecting which churches of like dignity are
divided, is not indubitably divine.'' Secondiv, the positive marks
of divine tradition, being, " (1) That which was always every-
where and by all believed as revealed, is most certainly a divine
revelation. Although it cannot be sufficiently clearly, or by any
convincing argument, derived from Holy Scripture, it must be
considered as certainly flowing from divine tradition. In the
first case, where the doctrine is contained in Scripture, but not
sufficiently clearly or of necessity, it will be a declarative tradi-
tion. In the second case, where it is either evidently not con-
tained in Scripture, or at least cannot be derived from it by any
convincing argument, it will be an oral tradition.

*' (2.) That any thing should be considered as having been
believed always, every where, and by all, it is not necessary that
all individual churches should mathematicallv or physicaliv agree;
but a moral consent of the churches is sufficient, and those the
chief ones; whence, if these agree together in stating any doc«
trine which cannot be derived from Scripture, it b most certainly
to be held that it emanates from divine tradition.

<< (3.) The uniform agreement and uniform practice of the
church of the fourth and fifth century, except this practipe is
known to have originated in the decree of the church or a coun-
cil, is a certain sign that that which was then believed was
always and every where believed as a divine revelation before
the fourth and fifth century." Precisely according to the doc*
trine of our opponents, in Tract 85, sect 8, pp. 102, <ic.

<* (4.) When the universal church observes any thing as per-
taining to faith, religion, or manners, the institutkMi of which
exceeds human power, and which is not found in the Holy Scrip-
tures, it is to be beUeved as certain that that was derived from
divine tradition.

XBBXnCAL WITH TB^B SOKXSEU 80

<* (5.) The doctrine which the universal church has defeiyjed
in any agei although it be not clear that it prevailed in particu*
lar churches, if it has been always preserved in the principal or
apostolical churches^ proceeded from divine tradition.

'* (6. ) Whatever the church hath either defined in a general
GOunciU as a doctrine of faith or majuiers, or even universally
professed without any decision of a general council, that, if it
either clearly cannot, or at least cannot sufficiently, be proved
from Scripture, is of divine traditioi^

<^ (7.) The uniform consent of the Fathers of the first fi/e cen-
turies bearing witness universally of any doctrine not contained
in Scripture^ ^ords a certain foundation for considering that that
doctrine is of divine tradition, although it is altogether specula-
tive." And in a not^ on this mark he says, — " It is not required
for that consent that they should all of them have spoken just
alike, and written so that none disagreed, with the rest [i. e. it is
not nece^ary to that consent that they should all, have consented];
for that consent, is not to be taken mathematically ^hyxt mo-
rally. But how many Fathers precisely may be sufficient and
be required, cannot be generaUy defined, as always happens in
those things which are to be judged of morally^ and vvhich are
left to the judgment of persons of good senseJ*^ (Neque ad
earn consensionem requiritur ut omnes illi prorsus idem dixerint
scripserintque nemine discordante : ejusmodi enim consensus non
nmthematice sed moraliter accipiendus est Caeterum quinam
praecise Patrum numerus sufficiat et requiratur, generaliter defi-
niri nequit, ut semper cootingit in iis quas moraliter sestimanda
sunt et prudentum judicio relinquuntur.) Which remarks are
surely remarkably similar jto the following observations of Mr.
Newman, : — " The rule of Vincent," says Mr. Newman, " is not
of a mathematical or demonstrative character, but morale and
Teifd\t^% practical judgment and good sense to apply it. For
instance, what is meant by being * taught always' r .... And
does the * consent of Fathers ' require us to produce the direct
testimony of every one of them? How many Fatliers^ how
many places^ how many instances, constitute a fulfilment of the
test proposed? • . • What degree of application is enough, must
be decided by the same principles which guide us in the con^
diAC^ o//(/j5," &c, (pp. 68, 9.)

** (8.) If the universal church observes any thing which is found
to have beep observed in it in all past times, though the institu-
tion of it may not be beyond human autl)ority, if its origin cannot
be ascertained, it is deservedly thought to have been instituted
by the apostles; but if ascending upwards, and inquiring into its
origin, we find it| it is only a human ecclesiastical tradition."

And to these marki are i^ppended the following '* corollaries."

H*

B9 Doonm of tbb tiactatou

"(1-) To those divine traditiona whose exbtence u proved bj
the foregoing marks, the assent of a divine faith is due equally
as to Scripture.

ine traditions of which we are certain, are a

'o this all will anbicribe.]

n certainly and coatinuooatj diffused through*

I church, is the fittest mean for applyiog to w

"(4.) Therefore Scripture is not perfect in the Prolestaat
sense. For it does not suffice alone to prove eonvinctngljf all
the doctrines of faith and precepts of manners of the charcb,
either those that are necessary or those that are useful."

" Therefore," adds the writer, " the complete rule o/failh is
Scripture Joined with divine tradition, which ip Protbstahti

WOULD ACHIT, ALL THE OTHCB COnTKOVKBaEB BBTWSCn US' AHD
THEM WOULD soon CEASE.*"

There is only one point in which I conceive our opponents can
object to this statement as differing from theirs, and that is, that
it does not distinctly slate that ail ' the fundnmental doctrines
are contained in the written word ; but (his was a point not in
question, and nothing here stated opposes that view, and I have
already shown that our opponents are totally mistaken in sup-
posing that the Romanists do not hold this, that is, in the sense
in which they themselves hold it, namely, that these doctrines
are so contained in the Scriptures, that tradition is necessary to
show that they are there. But certainly the Romanists )>oldiiHE
this view do not pretend to refer us to Scripture only for proq/i
of a doctrine which they think that we eould not find in Scrip-
ture but by the aid of tradition, and herein are much morecon-
nstent than the Tractators.

If more evidence were wanted of the views of the Romonistt
on this point, it would be easy to find iL One of our opponents*
own witnesses, Dean Field, will tell them, " For matters of faith
we may conclude, according to the judgment of the best and
most learned ofour adversaries themselves, that there is nothin|^
to be believed which is not either expressly contained in Scrip-
ture, or at least by necessary consequence from thence and other
things evident in the light of nature or in the matter of fact to
be concluded." (Of the Church, bk. 4. c W, p. 377.) And for .
modern evidence, they will find it in the Downside discussion,
where one of the Roman Otbolic speakers says, " The catholic *

doctrine is, that all absolutely essential revelations

are contained in the written word, but it cannot be proved that
all the doctrines, all and every one of those troths which Christ

I Sm Lnnpsr, vol. fit. pp. tl8— <t.

IDimnCAL WITH TU soimB* 01

came from beaven to reveal, aod which he willed should be
handed down to ftitnre agesi that all these are contained in the
written word." (p. 172,) And again,—** Proteetanti maintain
that the Bible alone h the rule of faith: toe maintain that all
absolutely essential doctrines are expressed in the Scriptures ;
either in the conclusions themselves^ or in the principles
whence they are deduced.** And then, haying quoted several
authorities for this statement, he proceeds, *< But whilst we hold
that almost every doctrine of religion is contained in the Scrip-
tures, yet we mamtain that there are some few doctrines which
are not expressly contained therein; and that there are many
others contained therein which are obscure. Of this we have a
proof in the immense diversity of opinions which we find amongst
those who make Scripture their only rule. We. maintain, there-
fore, that Scripture is not the only rule of faith ; that there are
some few doctrines handed down to us exclusively, and others
more expressly manifested, by the unwritten word, fornung a
part of the good tidings which Christ came from heaven to com-
municate; and this is called tradition. These two parts com-
plete the rule of faith qfthe catholic church.** (pp. 27, 28.)
" Tradition forms a part of the rule which Christ left to his
church, and as Protestants exclude tradition, they have not a
complete rule of faith.'' (lb. p. 118.)

It is difficult to conceive how our opponents can have fallen
into a mistake so important, and one which, though no doubt in-
advertently made,^ looks very strange, because it tends to make
the reader suppose that there is an important difierence between
their doctrine and that of the Romanists, when in fact they are
substantially identical. If, however, our opponents have any
doubts remaining about the mistake, I will supply them with seve-
ral other references in confirmation of the preceding.*

I It \t worthy of obsenrttidn that we have had not long a inee in oor own chorch
a practical proof of what the^principlea of the Tractatora on thia aabject may lead
to, and an acknowledgment of their identitj with thoae of the Charch of Rome
of a very remarkable kind. I allude to the cate of the Hon. and Rev. Mr. 8pen«
cer. It ia quite true that thia ia not vl proof oi the identity for which we contend,
hat it ia a practical argoment in favoar of it which wiae men will not think lightly of.
Thus writea Mr. Spencer himaelf on the aabject. " I coald hardly fail telling him
that in becoming a Catholic I had come into the firinciplet •which Mr, Sikeo and
he himtelfheld in cominon, and on which Mr. Sikea had done ao much to endea*
^ Toor to lead me to withoat effect ; becaoae I aaed alwaya to conceive the princi-
plea of church-aathority, which when proposed to me by Catholics afterwarda I
embraced, qaite inconsistent with the pretenaiona of the Charch of England, and
with the prindplea of the Reformation, to which both Mr. Siket and I adhered.
I have pabiicly staled that one step in my approximation to catholicity was
owing to the con^mation of a Protestant clergyman with whom I happened to
pass an evening a year before my converaion. The clergyman waa the late Mr.
Vanghan, brother to Sir Henry Halford, Id trgomeot with whem I waa main«

9% DeonuHV or «m oiMteiVWVfw

Lastly, let tbe reader compare, the doctrine of our opponents
with the following sqmmfiry of tlie Homiib doctrine of tbe rule
of iaitb, given bj £)r« Hawardiae»^ in Jbts Treatise on that sub-
ject' Dr. Hawardine sums up the Romish doctrine on tbe sub-

ttining the priaciple whieli I hM most ct^nooiMlx of regtrdiog nothifig bot thiB
Scripturtt as my guide. H« made me observe for the first time, what it was
straoge enough I had never before observed, that the Scriptures were not the
•riginal role of faith delivered as such by the apostlee to the church, and b«
pressed me with arguments to shew that the tradition of the church must be a|*
tended to, [that is, as part of the rule p( faith]. This part of his argument I took
little notice of, because I was quite cjear that in our hands the principle -wat un^
tenable i but I fklt xvbe after, that I waittbd soxiTHiire xoai bxtlicit

THAV THB S1XPLB SCBlFTUBftS TO eiTB KB AirASSCRAirGB OW VAITH, AXB I WAS
TKK KOBE BBADT TO BVBBACK THB CATHOLIC DOeTBlBX 0« TBB BVLX OF FAIT«
WBBV AT LEKOTH IT CAXX TO BB COBSISTBNTI.T PB0?08ED TO MB I BIO

convinced tbe argument you hold against the high chtirchmen of the Establish.*
ment is unanswerable." (British MagaEine for May, 1840; pp. 530, 531.)

No wonder that the Rodoanists are eztilting in the sucoeas of th* TractatoiA,
and congratulating themselves upon a gfsM and speedy. addition to their ranks
from those who have made such advances towards them ; among the many testi-
monies of which that might be quoted, I will content myself with the following
from the " Catholic Magazine'* for March, 1839.

•< Most sincerely and unaffectedly do we tender our cADgratulations to our
brethren of Oxford, that their eyes have beeB opened to the evils of private judgw
ment, end the consequent necessity of curbing its multifiorm extravagance. It
has been given to them to see the dangers of tbe ever*8hifting sands of the desert
in which they were lately dwelling, and to strike their tents and flee tbe perils of
the wilderness. They have already advanced a gneat vay on their Return to-
wards that church within whose walls the wildest imagination is struck with
awe,'* dec. — ** We can-^we do forgive them, — that, urged by the clamour of their
opponenu, many of them exhibit towards us an extreme degree of intol-
erance, by -way of proving their abhorrence ofkuch of out tenttM ai they do not
09 yet holdf and exhibiting themeehet ae good and time men to theeyet of their

brethren'* ** 8ome of the brightest ornaments of their chucoh have advocated a

re-union with the church of all times and all lands ; and the accomplishment of
the design, if we have read aright the " signs of the times,' is fast ripening. Her
maternal arms are ever open to receive back re^ntant children ; and as, when
the prodigal son returned to his father's house, the fatted calf was killed, and a
great feast of joy made, even so will the whole of Christendom rejoice greatly
when so bright a body of learned and pious men as the authors of the * Tracts (or
the Times' shall have made the one etep necessary to place them again within
that sanctuary, where alone they can be safe from .the moving sands beneath
which they dread being overwheliped. The consideration of this ^tep will soon
ineviubly come on ; and it is with the utmost confidence that we predict the bc*
cession to our ranks of the entire masib"*

The Tractators boast of having^ the great majority of our able and learned di-
vines in their favour. Will they have the kindness to inform us when and where
those divines were so addressed hy members of the Church of Rome ?

1 ** A person of consummate knowledge in all ecclesiastical afiairs, scholastic,
moral, and historical, and, to do ^im justice, perhaps the present age cannot ahow
his equal." — Dod. *^ Dr. Hawardine's works are distinguished for brevity, accu-
racy, clearness, order, and close reasoning." — Butler.

t The rule of faith truly stBiad. 1721. 12mo. Pt. 8, pp. ^ et seq.

♦ pp. 176, 6,

tOmimOAL WITH THB BOXUH. 98

ject in the following twelve rules. ^ First rule. The doctrine
of Christian religion which the apostles deUvered by word of
mouth was of equal authoritj with their writings. Second rule*
What directions soever the apostles were inspired to give for the
exercise of religion were of equal authority with their writings.
Third rule. The distance of the present age from that of &e
apostles is no just exception against the certainty and authority
of apostolical tradition. Fourth rule. Some points of Christian
religion are certainly known by apostolical tradition^ which in
particular are not plain in the Holy Scripture alone. F\fth
rule, •dll the chief articles of Christianity are contained in
the Holy Scripture.*' " This rule," he adds afterwards, " is I
think beyond dispute." ** Sixth rule. All the chief and most
necessary articles of Christianity Rre plain in the Holy Scripture,
if we consider it in that sense in which it is and always has been
understood by the faithful. Seventh rule. Considering the
Holy Scripture in that sense in which it was always understood
by the faithful, all the articles of religion which it is necessary
for every Christian to know are plain in it. Eighth rule. The
Holy Scripture evidently contains in general all points whatso-
ever of Christian religion. Ninth rule. All points of religion
may be solidly proved by arguments grounded on the Hoir
Scripture ; and by them all heresies may be solidly confutea.
Tenth rule. Some controversies of religion may be decided by
the Holy Scripture alone. Eleventh rule. The true church
may be found out by Scripture alone. Twelfth rule. What-
ever contains the chief and most distinguishing articles of Chris-
tian religion may be truly called the rule of faiths Such is the
Romish doctrine of the divine rule of faith and practice, as given
by Dr. Hawardine ; and his comment upon these twelve rules^
which is too long to transcribe here, identifies his doctrine still
more completely with that of our opponents. The reader will
not fail to observe that by the last of these rules it is contrived
that Scripture shall be called '< the rule of faith," but in a sense
which makes it far from being really the rule. In his explica-
tion of the twelfth rule, he says, " Hence the Books of the New
Testament may not improperly be called the rule of Christian
religion*'^ The same remark is made, as we shall see hereafter,
by Mr. Newman, and apparently for the same reason, viz. in
order to explain away some passages of the Fathers in which it is
so called, and which therefore render it necessary that the name
should in some way or other be admitted.

It would be easy to multiply such extracts, and I may just re-
fer the reader to the statements of the Roman Catholic opponent

I p. 306.

*

04 DOCTSINB OP THB TBACTAT0R8, STe«

of the late Rev. Ralph Cburton (no low Churchman) on ihb
\ subject as alnnost identical with those which are now, alas ! pat

^ forward bj divines of the Church of England.^

But having given sufficient to enable the reader to compare
the doctrine of the two parties upon the subject, I pass on to the
more important task of examining its pretensions.

1 See Reply to Rev. R. Oharton, by F. Eyre, of Warkworth, Eeq. Load-
1798,8YO.pp. 116—119 ; 6k.

95

CHAPTER IV

THAf THESE AXS NO WBITINGS SXTANT EOTITLSD TO TRB KAXE
OF APOffTOUCAL TRAmTI0l9S BUT THB CANONICAL SOBIPTirRSS.

*

In entering qpon the inqniry whether there remain to us any
apostolical traditiona besides the Bcriptures of the apostles in thie
New Testanient^ the first pmnt which we have to ascertain is,
whether there are any writings extant entitled to that name.

That there are writings claiming to be so considered is well
known. Such^ for instance, are various apocryphal gospels and
epistles, the apostolical canons, the apoetoiical constitutions, and
various liturgies called by thip names of the apostles. With re^
spect to all these, however, it is so generally agreed that they
cannot be considered the genuine productions of the apostles, that
it is unnecessary to notice them any further in this place*

But besides these there is one relic of antiquity which has been
contended for by some as a genuine relic of the ^apostles, and* for
which Mr. Newman evidently claims an apostolical origin and
authority^ — namely, what is commonly called the •Spostka^
Creed. Mr. Newman calls it *'the formal symbol which the
apostles adopted, and bequeathed to the church;'' fp. 270;) ''a
collection of definite articles set apart from thefirst ;'' (p, 296 ;) and
says that it ^ is of the nature of a written document, and has an
evidence of its apostolical origin, the same in kind with that for
the Scriptures." (p. 297.) And uponsuch grounds he would make
it part of the authoritative rule of faith. -

. Now, however great may be the value to be attached to this
venerable relic of the primitive churchi such claims as are here
made in its behalf are utterly without foundation. Indeed, to
bear such a claim advanced for it in the present day is not a little
remarkable. Tosay with Mosheim, *' All who have the leatst
knewletigeofeLhtimit J ]ooku^n thir opinion as entirely faUe^
and destitute of all foundation^'^ would perhaps seem incontistent

1 E^. Hist. Pt. S. c 3. BngL trantL ^1. L p. 109.

M Oir THB AllTISBT CBSSM.

with the renuirki which have dropped from the pen of one or two
learned men on the subiect ; bat certainly I will venture to say,
that Mr. Newman will find an overwhelming majority of the
learned divines of th^ last three centuries who MVe examined the
subject^ altogether against him.*

As this matter is of some moment^ I will enter somewhat fully
into ity and in proof of the statement just made will endeavour to
establish the following positions.

1. That no precise form of words was left by the apostles as the
Christian Creed.

2. That there was no such deBnite summary of the chief arti«
cles of belief given by the apostles to the Christian church as the
Creed, and that what is called *^ the Apostles' Creed'' js merely
the antieot Creed of the Church of Rome^ and no more entitled to
the name than any other of the antient Creeds.

8. That what is called ^ the Apostles' Creed" gradually attained
its present form» and that two at least of the article it now con-
tains were not inserted in it before the Iburtb century.

4. That the Creeds of the primitive church were derived origi-
nally from the Holy Scriptures.

And therefore

5. That none of the antient Creeds canbe considered as an apos-
tolical production.

1. That no precise form of words was left by the apostles as
the Christian Creed.

On this point we naturally refer, firsty to the canonical Scrip-
tures of the apostles and disciples of our Lord. And considering
the nature of those writings we might not unreasonably expect
to 6tid some notice of such a formula having been published by
them, if so it liad been. But for such a notice we shall search
in vain. Mr. Newman indeed, without any hesitation; but also
without any proof, maintains the contrary, and silently assuming
the correctness of his own private interpretation of one or two
passages tha^ seem to him to favour his views, boldly tells us of
»t. Paul *^ qxioting^^ the Creed, and even the name be gives to
it For after observing that history tells us the Creed was
drawn up in the apostles days, he adds, '* Indeed St. Paul in his
first epistle to the Corinthians so speaks of it, when quoting part,
qf itj viz. as that which had been committed to him, and which
he had committed in turn to his con verts. (1 Cor. xv. 8.)" (p. 2^1.)
^To guard and to transmit it, [i. e. the Creed,] not to remodel
it^, is her sole duty, as St. Paul has determined in his second
epistk to Timothy.** (p. 267.) *' It is delineated and recog*

1 See JValch. Introd. in libr. iTiiib. lib. i. c 8. BudtL latf. ad Theolog. lib.
L c S. § 3. £in^*i Biit of the Apoetles* Crocd ; Peanm $ Barrov / dtc.

^

OV THB ▲ JITiBMT ' CKBIDt. 97

nised in Scripiurt itself^ where it is called the Hypotyposis,
or * outline c/ sound words.'* " (p. 297.)

These cool assumptions are certainly very convenient, because
tbey cut aU keots at once, and by many readers are doubtless
much preferred to the cautious and guarded statements of one
who has well weighed bis positions, and speaks only according to
the evidence he possesses, but nevertheless must not be allowed
to usurp the place of proof by one who wishes to know the truth.
On what authority has Mr. Newman made these confident asser-
tions of St. Paul quoting ** the Creed ]" There is not a word
about " the Creed" in either of the passages here referred to, nor,
as it appears to me, would the expressions lead to Mr. Newman's
view of their meaning, even if we knew from independent sour-
ces, that a Creed had been at that time drawn up. In the first
passage the apostle says, '^ \ delivered unto yo« first of all that
which I also received, how that Chrut died for our sins according
to the Scriptures," &c (1 Cor. xv. 8.) Now compare this passage
with one just preceding it, in the eleventh chapter, *' For I have
received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that
the Lord Jesus the same night in which be was betrayed took
bread," &c. fxi. 23.) The expressions are all but identical, and
surely, therefore, the obvious mode of interpreting the passage in
the 15th is by that in the 1 Ith chapter, where there is evidently
no quotation from the Creed, And if any thing further is want-
ing to show that the apostle did not *< receive" his faith from
<* the Creed," we have it in his own words in his epistle to the
Cralatians, where he says^ <* The gospel which was preached of
me is not afler man, for I neither received it of many neither
was I taught itj but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.** (Gal.
i. 11, 12. So much then for this ** quotation from the Creed."
The next passage is an exhortation to Timothy, ** Hold fast the
form (or, outline) of sound words which thoU has beard of me,"

&C. *Tflr«fi«r#n» t^^ iymiHTttf A«v«^, #f wmf tfuif «s#»9'«f. (2 Tim.

i. 13.) Now the construction of these words in the original
completely overthrows Mr. Newman's interpretation. For the
apostle does not say that Timothy had ** heard from him" <' an
outline of sound words," but that he had heard from him sound
words, of which he was to hold fast the outline^ that is, the great
characteristic features. The English reader will observe that
the word ** which" refers to the *' sound words ;" so that the
nneaning of the passage would be more accurately conveyed to
the En^sh reader by the following translation: '* Hold fast the
form (or, outline) of those sound words which thou hast heard of
me." I admit that the passage has often been quoted in the
sense which Mr. Newman has attributed to it, and a remarkable
instance it is among the many that might be mentioned, of the

VOIh l i^

98 OK TKS AKnXNT CSSSD8.

way in which obeervBtiom are handed down from one lo another
and repeated on the mere authority of their having once been
made*'

I repeat, then^ we shall search Scripture in vain for any even
the slightest intimation that the apostles drew up a Creed (or the
use of the Church. And it is hardly to be credited that had the
apostles drawn up such a formula, we should have had no notice
ot it in the Acts of the Apostles.

Further ; if there was such a form of words where is it 7 which -
form, among all the various ones which have come down to us, is
that of the apostles T The form called by us ''the Apostles'
Creed'' b not to be traced higher than the fourth century. And
the forms given in the early writers vary much both from this
and among themselves.

For instance, the earliest extant is in Irenseus, who, having
spoken of'' the unalterable rule (»«fAii') of truth which he received
by baptism/V (•» Ji* T«y fimimcf&Mr0r fiA«^f) gives "the faith
preached by the church" thus, — '* The church, though scattered
over all the world from one end of the edrth to the other, re-
ceived from the apostles and their disciples the belief in one God,
the Father Almighty who made the heaven, and the earth, and
the seas, and all things that are in them ; and in one Jesus Christ,
the Son of Grod, who was incarnate for our salvation ; and in the
Holy Spirit, who preached by the prophets the dispensations, and
the advents, and the birth by a virgin, and the passion, and the
resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven
of the beloved Jesus Christ our Lord, and his advent from heaven
in the glory of the Father to restore («f««f^«A«f«r«rl«4) all things,
and to raise all flesh of all mankind, that to Christ Jesus our Lord
and God and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure
of the invisible Father, every knee should bow of things in heaven
and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every
tongue should confess to him, and that he may execute just judg-
ment upon all ; that be may send the spirits of wickedness and
transgressing and apostate angels, and all impious and wicked
and lawless and blasphemous men into everlasting fire ; and to

1 Another inattnoe, I would humbly sabmit, is in the common tpplication of
Matt xfi. 18. *'The gttee of hell (or, hadet) shall not prevail against iu"
(MtTjr;^vrov^iv atnuf.) The idea is that of prevailing by superior strength to keep
an adversury dovni. This text is almost always qaoted as a promise that Satan
shall neyer destroy Christ's church on earth ; and is so applied by Mr. Ne#man.
(p. 349.) Bat what can the gates of hades have to do with the church on earth !
Bat viewing hadet as the place of departed spirits, where they remain till the
resdrrection, the passage is clear, and the excellence of the promise at once
seen. It is a promise that the church shall not remain always in that place of
intermediate rest, bat shall be ultimately delivered from H by him who <' hath
the keyt of hadet and of death." (Rev. L 18.)

OH THB ANTISirT CSSIDf. • 99

the just and holj, and those that have kept his commandmeDts,
and remained steadfast in his love, some from the beginningy
others after repentance, having given life, may confer on them
immortality, and put them in possession of eternal glory.'*^

The same writer, however, having occasion again to refer to
the rule of faith, which he now calls, *' the order, or rule, of that
tradition which the apostles delivered to those to whom they
committed the churches," gives it in the following words, —
^ Believing in one God, the maker of heaven and earth, and all
things which are in them, through Christ Jesus the Son of God ;
who on account of his extraordinary love for his creature, submit-
ted to be born of a virgin, uniting man to God in his own person,
and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and
being received in glory, shall come in glory as the Saviour of
those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are condemned,
sending the corrupters of the truth (transfigura tores veritatis) and
the despisers of his Father and of his advent into eternal fire'"

Passing from Irenaeus to one who flourished shortly after him,
viz. Tertullian, we have a << Rule of faith" delivered to us in
quite difierent terms. Tertullian himself, indeed, gives it us in
three different forms of words.

In his book, '< On prescription against heretics,'' he says, —
** The rule of faith, — that we may now at once state what we
believe, — is that by which we believe that there is but one God,
and no other beside, the maker of the world, who produced all
things out of nothing by his Word which he sent forth first of all
things. That that Word was called his Son, was seen at various
times by the patriarchs under the name of God, was always
heard by the prophets, and at last was brought down by the
Spirit and power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, and
made flesh in her womb, and being bom of her, lived in the per-
son of Jesus Christ ; that from that time he preached a new law
and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven ; that he performed
miracles, was crucified, rose again the third day, and being taken
up into heaven, sat at the right hand of the Father, and in his
stead sent the power of the Holy Spirit to guide believers; and
that he shall come with glory to take the saints into the fruition
of eternal life and the heavenly promises, and adjudge the wicked
to everlasting fire, having restored to life both thd one and the
other, and raised their b^ies." ** This rule," he adds, ^* instituted
by Christ, raises no disputes among us except such as heresies in-
troduce, or such as make heretics.'"

Again, in his treatise *' On virgins being veiled," he says, "The

1 Imir. AdT. b»r. lib. i. c 10. Miff, c S. Grab.

s Adw. hmt. lib. iii. e. 3. * De Preiciipt^ adt. luirai. c 18.

100 OK TEE AlinSHT CBSVM.

Rule of Faith is but one, aloue UDcbangeable and uoreformabley
namely, of believing in one God Almighty, the maker of the
world, aad his Son Jesus Chrbt, born of the Alrgin Mary, cruci-
fied under Pontius Pilate; raised the third day from the dead,'re-
ceived in the heavens, and now sitting at the right band of the
Father, who shall come to judge the quick and the dead by the
resurrection of the flesh.'*^

He refers to it again in his Treatise against Praxeas, where he
states it thus ; — *^ We believe indeed one God, nevertheless under
this dispensation, which we call ceconomy, namely, that there is
also a Son of that one God, to wit, his Word, who proceeded from
him, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing
was made ; that he was^ sent by the Father into a virgin, and
born of her man as well as Grod, the Son of man and the Son of
God, and called Jesus Christ ; that be suffered and was dead and
buried according to the Scriptures, and raised again by the
Father, and taken back again into the heavens, and now sits at
the right hand of the Father, about to come to judge the quick
and the dead, from whence also he sent from the Father accord-
ing to his promise the Holy Spirit, the Par1ficlete,a9the sanctifier
of the faith of those who believe in the Father and Son and Holy
Spirit." And he adds, that " this rule had come down from the
beginning of the Gospel." (Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii
decucurrisse.)'

The passages we have just quoted are, as far as I can find,
(and as is generally understood,) the only passages in the writings
extant of the first two centuries in which we have a formal and
succinct delivery of the chief articles of the Christian belief, the
next occurring in the writings of Origeui who flourished towards
the middle of the next century.

It follows, therefore, I conceive, beyond doubt, that there was
no form of words left by the Apostles as the Christian Creed ; for
had there been, that doubtless would have been quoted in these
passages. Had there been such a form left by the Apostles,
there can be no doubt that it would have been religiously pre-
served by the church, and recognized in such passages ns those
we have quoted. But for the first three centuries and more there
is not the slightest indication given us that the Apostles left such
a form. Each person who has occasion to give a summary of the
chief articles of the faith, gives it in different words, and if more
than once, does not himself give always the same form. The
silence of the Nicene Council upon the matter is particularly
observable, because then at least there would have been a re-
cognition of such a form had it existed. There were then no

1 De Yinitt. vtland. c I. > Lib. ad^. Praz. c. S.

ON TBM ANTOan CBXBM* 101

difficultiefl in the way to prevent its being opeolj brought for-
ward if there had been such a formuia, for persecution bad then
ceased, and there could be no reason for concealing il, especially
when they were about to promuige one intended for the same
purposes as this is supposed to have answered. The rise of here-
sies might have rendered some addition desirable^ but there would
have been at least some respectful rec^nitionof the formula left
by the Apostles had there been sucb.^ The silence of this council
upon the subject appears to me conclusive against the idea.

Further, the early Fathers apply themselves to prove the
Articles of the Creeds they give, from the writings of the Apos-
tles, which obviously would have been altogether useless and ab-
surd for one composed by the Apostles. ;Such a Creed would in
fact have formed a portion of the Canonical Scriptures, and a
portion of the highest authority, as sanctioned by the unaninK)U8
voice of the Apostles.

If it is repKed, from a^ misunderstanding of ' the words of
Jerome, (quoted in the next page) that *' the Creed'' was not
written but delivered orally from one to another, I answer, that
this is evidently a misinterpretation of his words, for *' the Creed"
had been before that time delivered without hesitation in writing
by Ruffinus, and so had been the Jerusalem form of it by Cyril,
to say nothing of the forms given by Irenasus and Tertulliai), and
therefore the meaning of Jeromet when he says, that ** the Creed
is not written on paper or with ink, but on the fleshly tables of
the heart," is, that true Chrbtians, as a body, were to inscribe
it on their hearts, and not on paper, whicb would be useless ;
and perhaps there may be also an allusion to the fact that *' the
Creed'' was not to be written by the baptised, lest the catechu-
mens might peruse it before thev were prepared to receive the
faith it contained, as we learn from Cyril.* But such passages
do not mean that ** the Creed" was not to be anywhere written,
for authors that make similar remarks have themselves left it in
writing, as for instance Cyril and Ruffinus.'

It is not till the close of the fourth century that we meet with
the report of its being composed by the Apostles. We do not
even find the name <* the Apostles' Creed," (a name which might
have been given to it on many other grounds than from the Apos-
tles having been considered its authors) earlier than a letter of
Ambrose, written about the year 389.' The first assertion of
its having been composed by the Apostle is found in Ruffinus,

1 Catech. 5. sub fin. ad. MUlas. § 7. p. 75.

2 RafC in Symbol, prope intU '

9 Credatar a jmbolo Apostoloram, qaod Eccleaia Romana iDteineratiiiD aemper.
enstodit at aarvat Ad Siricium. £p. 4S. Ed. Benad. (Par. 1836, torn. iv. p.
338.) Tha aarliar works to which raferanca haa baan nada, «ra all long ago

I*

102 OK THU AHTIWrr CBSSDi.

who, io hk Exposition of the Creedi written about the year 890,
tells us that it was said to be written by them,^ though he him-
8eir> in a subsequent part of the same Treatise, speaks in a man-
ner that shows he at least felt doubts on the subject' Jerome
also speaks of the Creed as having been delivered by the Apos-
tles/ and similar language is held respecting it by several wri-
ters in the fifth and sixth centuries/ and those that follow/ and
bence for a time the notion gained credit that the Apostles were
the authors of it But the. language of Jerome is not decisive as
to what his own view of the matter was, for it may seem, as
Du Pin supposes it to. mean, merely that the Creed contained the
apostolical faith And his great contemporary Augustine, not
only has nowhere in his genuine works* even given, to it the name
of *Uhe Apostles' Creed," but has expressly said, as we shall
show presently, that it was compiled from the Scriptures.

The account of Ruffinus is this, — ** Our Fathers say, that after
the ascension of ojUr Lord • « • . the Apostles . . • • went each
to dinereht nations. Therefore, being about to separate from
each other, they settle among themselves beforehand a rule for
their future preaching, lest perchance when apart from one
another J they should preach to those who were invited to the
faith of Christ doctrines at all dissimilar. Therefore, being
assepibled all together and filled with the Holy Spirit, they com-
pose that short summary of their future preaching, putting to-
gether what each one thought fit to supply, and resolve that this
should be given to the faithful as a rule."

And the Author of the Sermon numbered 115 of the '<Ser-
nK>ne8 de Tempore," of Augustine, kindly tells us what articles
each Apostle supplied, Thomas supplying the words, ** he de-
scended into hell," and.Simon Zelotes, '* the communion of saints,''

eonfesied to be iparioat| as Clem. Rom. Ep. lid Jacob. Conilit. Apoetol. lib. ni,
c4l.

I ** Tradant majoret Doatri," St,c. Expos, in Symb. § S.

i *< CsQtisfme aotem qui tymbolum tradideruni etiam tempaa quo bsc aab
Pontio Pilato gesta aunt deaignavarunt." lb. % 80.' Ed. Pamel. Col. Agripp.
1617.

» In ajmbolo fidai et tpei noatre, qaod ab Apoatblia traditom non acnbitor in
clurta et atramento aed in tabUUa cordia carnalibua, poat confeationetn Trinitatia
et nnitatem eccletis omne Christiani dogmatia lacrfimentDm carnia reeurrectione
concluditur. Ad Pammach. adv. error. Jo. Hierotol. (written about tbe year
897.) Ed. Bened. torn. if. col. 893. Vail. Yen. ii. 485.
. 4 Leo Magn. Ep. 13. Jo. Oaaaian. De incam. Dom. lib. ▼. Venantioa Fortnna-
tus, Expoa. 8jmb. in Prafat. laidor. Hispal. Orig. lib. ▼{. c. 9. VigiL Tape. Adv.
Eatych. lib. !▼.

6 Raban. Manr. De inatit cler. lib. ii. c. 56, and otbera.

< Serm. 1 15 and 181 of bia 8ermonea de Tempore are confeafedly apariona and
r^ected by tbe Benedlctinea.

which articlef , as k well kaown, were not io the Crted till wme ^

two centaries at hast after the death of the Apoitles.

A vevy pretty story, but coming rather too late in the day in
the year 890, to make much impressiony* and withal not very
complimentary to inspired meui that they should be so careful to
confer with one another before they separated* lest they should
preach difierent doctrines.

We assert further,

2. That there was no such definite summary of the chief ar-
ticles of belief given by the Apostles to the Christian Church, as
'* the Creed f and that what is called <* the Apostles' Creed'' is
merely the antient Creed of the Church of Rome, and no more
entitled to the name than any other of the antient Creeds.

In the first place, as we observed on the former head. Scrip-
ture is silent as to their having left any such summary.

That they required a confesnon of faith from candidates for
baptkm is doubtless true, but how far that confession extended
we have at least no evidence in Scripture, and the only recorded
confession is, I think, that of the Ethiopian eunuch, — "I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of Ood," — ^whicb was evidently ac-
cepted by Philip as a sufficient baptismal confession, and which
might be said to include virtually a confession of the whole
Trinity. (Acts viii. 37.) And a similar confession is spoken of on
other occasions as involving virtually an avowal of the Christian
faith. (See ch. xvi. 31.^

So much, then, is of coui^e freely granted, that the Apostles
required a confession of faith previous to baptism, which might
and probably did include several of the articles now in ** the
Apostles' Creed." But as to the extent of that confession, or that
it had any definite limits, there is at l^ast no evidence upon
which we can depend. Ingenious as are the conjectures which
have been offered, founded upon the catechetical instructions of
the Apostles, that such and such articles must have formed part
of the baptismal Creed, they are but conjectures, and grounded
upon a mode of argument which would prove too much ; for if,
as has been argued, the articles of the resurrection of the dead
and life everlasting are to be admitted, because the Apostle
mentions in one place the resurrection of the dead and eternal
judgment as doctrines belonging to the "foundation," on the
same ground we must conclude that " the doctrine of baptism
and of laying on of hands" formed part of that Creed in the
time of the Apostles.

Moreover, bad there been such a fixed and definite summary
there would not have been so great a variation in the confessions
given by the early writers* fiad there been a collection of cer-
tain definite articles made by the Apostles, and left with the

1§4 oir TBM AirruuiT oibbm.

• church, on the underatandiiig that thoie were the artides which
should form the Creed, there would not have been thia vari-
ation. I

Nor can there be any doubt that we should have had some
reference to this fact in the Fathers of the first three centuries,
and the proceedings of the Nicene Council. Thej would have
told us, especially when delivering 'Uhe rule of faith," that the
Apostles had leit a rule of faith consisting of certain definite
articles; but instead of this, when giving the Rule of faith, they
vary in the number of articles given, fond uniformly leave out
some of those given in our present Creed. .

Nay, more, the summaries given by the same Father vary in
extent, so as to show that the selection was made by the indi-
vidual writer. And all that is stated merely amounts to this,
that the summary so given was agreeable to the faith delivered
by the Apostles, that the faith delivered in it had come from the
Apostles.

To the argument, that unless there had been such a summary
there would not have be^n the similarity we find in these Creeds,
it is quite a sufficient answer to refer to the parting direction of
our Lord to his disciples, '* Go and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost," (Matt xxviii. 19,) in which we find at once the rudi*
mente of the earliest Creeds, and from which ** the CreeeP^ ap*
pears to have derived its origin.

Such is the view taken of this passage by the great Atha-
nasius.

*^ Let us moreover," he says,^ observe, that this was from the
beginning the tradition and doctrine and faith of the catholic
church, which the Lord gave^ and the Apostles preached, and
the Fathers kept For upon this the church was founded, and
he who falls away' from this could not be, nor be called, a Chris-
tian. Therefore, there is a holy and perfect Trinity, &c. . .
[proceeding to deliver the doctrine of the trinity] • • . And that
this faith is the faith of the church, let them learn from this, that
the Lord, when he sent forth his disciples, commanded them to
lay this frmndation for the church, saying, ^ Go and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost'; and the apostles went and taught
thus ; and this is what is preached to every church under heaven.
Therefore, since the church has this as the foundation of its
fhithf let them tell us in reply, and answer whether there is a
Trinity or a Duality," kc*

OM laX ABTURCT OBMBM. 105

And 80 waio ;-^^ Tbk ii tbe faith of the catholic church.
For the Lord hath founded and rooted it upon the Trinity ,
toying to his disciples, ^ Go and teach all nations, baptising them
in tbe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost'"*

And again, speaking of the name Father as being more ap-
propriate for the first Person of the Trinity than Unbegotten, he
says, *' Moreover, vvhen teaching us to. pray, he [i. e. our Lord]
did not say, But when ye jpray^sayyO God, unb^otten, but. But
when ye pray, say. Our Father who art in heaven ; and also he
wished the summary of our faith to lead likewise to this [name,]
where having commanded that we should. be baptized, it is not
in the name of the Unbegotten and the begotten, nor in the name
of tbe Creator and tbe created, but in the name of Father, and
Son, and Holy Ghost."»

Hence it is said in the *^ Catholic letter" attributed to Atha-
nasius, ^* The symbol, therefore, of our faith is tbe Consubstantial
Trinity/'^

Hence, therefore, Tertullian^ after giving << the Creed," adds,

lA, 0vt' «y tn y/ryttfn, Hftrtrunt. T^mc Tc^ye? a}4« juu 'rfXifct %frtt . • • • TUmi on
ttu*n i fritr$( ms ExjcAjrrMf tcri, /j^^ntt^mt, vmc o (Mr Kv^, asr^a^t^KKm vwt A^no^r$'
>MUSt 9rKf*iyyuh» rwrot Bt/uixi09 *rAtna m i^nxnci^ Kfym, TlofuBttrit fjut^mtuo-ttirt vatfTa,
Tat lAnr ^xsrrt^ofns Aurctn «c to oyo^ tm/ rUT^oc Ktt rw T/ov »ai tov ^w UfWfiaroc.
'Oi 4* h^roo^^koi irpftAvm turmt Ma^ttf, Km tovto wrar tit ^«r«t9 rm uir' oa^yov
Emmm^uu to KnfvyfAtu Omccv? , Tcvt«v ^x/^vnt tm ExxMiriflt; tot ^ikm nt 'JnT^rmt^
WTArmaxf 9r*)jf ifuitf muru tuu curojK^iM0&0-«i', TfMc *f*rtf $ AuAt; »• t. k, AthanM.
Epitt ad Serap. Contra eos quri dicunti Spiritum S. creatunim esse. §§. 28, 9.
Op. ed. Ben. torn. i. Part 2. pp. 676, 7. Ed. Col. 1686. torn. i. pp. 202, a. See
also tbe same Treatise at §. 6. p. 663, (or p. 179.) et EpisC ad Serap. contra eos
qui dicant' FUiam creatarom esse, 4. 6. p. 687, (or, p. 170.) tbe former partica-
larlj.

1 Atm T«c K«t9oXiMc EjuiXm-mc i ^irrtc* B? *T^i y^ attnf iStfWjmn mm ff/{Wir
e T^yficft ufmuK toic fxaBmeutt Il&^ivdmc /uuLBurttf^-An ». t. X. Epist. ad Serap. Be
8pir. 8. ^. 6. ed. Ben. torn. i. Pt. 2. p. 695. ed. Col. torn. iL p. 14.

> AAXA MM ifjMf v^trBtu Mmnm, teat imw, *Ortcr h Tpoawx(»^ hfytrt, 6fl Aymnrtf
AXXet fjMikeit, 'Otov <tt Tf09w^t9^ ^f)^^ Ilfltarf wfjim • m *rots ec/^oic* mu to MVfuxnm
/« T«c mv*nm i/um us tovto cumnm ir6^M^ «i\«/0-«r nfJt^t (iaarti^v^M^ ovx «c ok/mc
Kytwrrw ttfU TmnrWfWii ut ove/uia ILr-c^w not KTir^cMtTor, «tAX* ut tm/juL IIat^ iuu .
TiovMioytov nmfMTot, Contra. Arianos. Orat. la. §. 34. ed. Den. torn. i. pp. 43^,
9. orat. 2a. ed. Colon, vol. i. p. 341, See also orat. 4, § 21. torn. i. p. 633. (or,
orati 6. torn. i. p. 535.) And so in tbe Treatise, ** Contra Sabellii Gregales," at-
tributed to Athanasios, and supposed bj Da Pin and otbers to be genuine tbougb
the Benedietines place it among tbose of doubtfnl genuineness, it is said, M«JW
OfMt/utmof Tct TfUL m lA^wia. h^tMp fefu(tvm, «AX' r rw tfutit yentw to lu tX*" '''^
mn^^x^Mt TMf mff-noK n t« ^ot^nnv^fAwrt mm 0 rait Tfio-n ayiatt w^fttyteu ed. Ben, torn,
li. p. 43. ed. Col. toK i. p. 658. Tbe *' Epistola ad JoVianam," vol. ii. p. 241,
(or, p. 34.) contains a similar passage, bat I do not qqote it as tbat Letter is gene-
rally considered spuriovis,

s "SttfAfkMf ovr VIC irif^mt if*m o^Moovriod! T^mt. ed. Bened. toil. is. p, 30. ed.
ColoB. 1684. torn, i, p- 571. This letter is eeMidered l>]r Da Pia aad others as
genoine, bat tbe Benedictines have plaaed it an^ong the donbtfoL

106 ON VHS AWCtrnVT OSUM.

(in a pa80ftce already qaoted, pp. 09 aJ)ove») that ** this rule'' was
" instituted by Christ**

So Basili after giving a summary of " the Creed," taken pro-
fessedly from Scripture, adds, *• Thus we believe, and thus we
baptize into the Consubstantial Trinity, according to thie com-
mand of our Lord Jesus Christ, when he said, *Go and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'*'*

So in the Creed of Lucian, (quoted p. 113 below,) these words
of our Lord are referred to as. the foundation upon which the
Creed was built.

Thus also Gregory of Nyssa says, " And afterwards he [i. e.
our Lord] adds the words by which they [i. e. his disciples] were
about to take captive as in a net the whole earth, and in which
is contained the whole mystery of true religion; for be says,
< Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the miy Ghost, teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded y9u.'"' And
so in another place he says, ^ We believe in accordance with
that faith which our Lord set forth to the disciples, saving, *^ Go
and teach all nations,' &4:. This is the declaration of the mys«
tery by which, through the birth from above, our nature is
changed from that which is mortal to that which is immortal."'

And thus speaks Augustin: '^ Who can be ignorant that it is
not Christ's baptism, if the Words of the Gospel, in which the
Creed is containedy have been there wilnting."*

Thus also Hilary : ,<< To belieyei^ the word of God, whiph was
transfused into our ears by the testimony of the £vangeHst united
with the power of its oWn truth, Was sufficient, when^ the Lord
says, * (jo and teach all nations, baptizing them,' Slc. [Matt,
xxviii. 19, 20.] For what is there which concerns the mystery
of the salvation of man, which is not contained in it? Or what

Wot/ Kuftov i/Jten Iwou Xfwrw vrorrof, irwuBtrrK fAA^nrvTetn ». <r. x. 8erm. de fide. §.
4, ed. Bened. torn. ii. p. 228. Par. 1618. torn. ii. p. 255.

2 TSm trt<fiptt xctTTOf ra ^MfAtira ^i* m ^c\xo? *rwf otnou/umif oMr r«^«M/r) Juu «r etc
«7T<ir ttn-ett TO <r»c WTt^xc ixvo^nfut' n<f«/9imr y^ft 9'^h fxoAimua'wrt wsfra. r« iSyv,
fiMrri^omc X. <r. x. De returr. ont 2a. (Par* 1638- torn. iii. p. 414. Par. 1615 —
18. torn. ii. p. 846)

8 TUfrwojutr cvf xa^cK if^flrr* to^ fut«tBiirtU( rut vio-rtr e Yivfmt o wtmr wri TrofvAvrm
fieiBnrwo'An jt« r- k- [Matt, xxviii. 11^.1 'Ovroc w^iy o Xoyot rw ftumftw, 9t mho, tji;
wtt^ ytnii<nm firrA^xsua^rrat ifjim » ^vrit c^m rw ^hffrw irfof to a^Bapfh Id.
Contr. Eanom. £d. 1615. orat la. torn. ii. p. 2- Ed. 1638. orat- 2a. torn. li.

« Qaia natciat non ease baptismnm Uhriati «i Terba Evangeliea quibut tymMum
conttai illic defaerint. Aa^. De bapt- contra Donat lib- S.'C* 25. torn- ix. col. 176;
There can be Ao dovbt what the ** Terba Evaogeliea" meao, at he had aald joat be-
fore, *<Deaa adeat Evadgelicit ▼erbai aQie,iiBe qaibiu beptiamia Chriallcoaae-
erari non potest."

ON THE ANTIEMT CRXSM. 107

is there which remaiiM to be odd, or is obscure ? AH things are
completey ms from one who is complete, and perfect. . • . But we
are compelled, throuffh the sins of heretics and blasphemers, to
handle points of whidi we have no permission to speak ; to climb
the heights of divine truth ; to speak of ineffable mysteries ; to pre*

sume beyond what is revealed to us. Their infidelity

carries us into the region of doubt and danger, when it is neces-
sary to put forward any thing concerning things so great and
recondite beyodd the heavenly rule.. The Lord had said that
the nations were to be baptized in the name of the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The form (or, ruk) of faith
is certain; but as it r^ards the heretics, the whole meaning is
in dispute.*'^'

And lastly, thus speaks Theodoret:^*Go, said he, and teach
all nations, baptizing them,' &c. And, according to this law,
both the divine apostles, and the teachers of the church who
followed them, teach those who' come to them to believe in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and
baptize those who are thus taught, in the namcyof the Father
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'?'

The foundation of ** the Creed," therefore, was laid in these
words delivered by our Lord himself. Each bishop or church
baptizing according to our SavioUr's command, in the name of
the Fatner, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, required first
and principally a lirief confession of belief in the Father, Son,
and rioly Ghost, in the terms which they thought most suit*
able to the orthodox faith; and this direction of our Lord was
evidently considered by the early Fathers as intimating that the
sum and substance of the Christian faith consisted in -such a con-
fessiop; and hence Christians are called by TertuUian " those
who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost'

»>a

> SafBeiebtt credentibut Dei senno qui lo aares nottrts Evangelifts testimonio
eum ipsa veritatis ane Tirtuta tranafostia eat, cam dicit DomlDoa, *£antea none
docete omnaa gentea bapiizantea eoa,' Ae, Qaid eniod in eo de aacramento aalotia
liQmaas non continatur 1 Aut qiiid aat, quod ait reliquum aut obacurum 1 Plana

aoDt omni&-ut a piano at aparlacto paHecta. 8ad compellimur hereticoram

at blaaphemaotiaai vitiia illicita agara, ardua acanderet ineffabilia eloqui, incoDcas*
aa preaumara .... Horum infidalttaa in ancepi noa ac periculum protrahit, ut
nacasaa ait da tanlia ac tam reconditia rabua aliquid Ultra proscriptum coBlaste pro-
ferra. Dizarat Dominua baptisandaa gentea in nomine Patria at Filil et Spiritua
Saiicti. Forma fidai carta eat; acd quantum ad tieratiooa omnia aanaua incertua
eat. Hilar. De Trin. lib. 2. ^ 1, 3, 5. Ed. Banad.

tifCfAa rw n<Tpec mci tov Tmv iuU rev ttyuu Tlvw/Jtatott »^ 'roc/; /uttomii/dvTatc ^arri^wo'n
ac T* e¥9fi* Tov lUtfTfoff a. r* X. Tbciod. H»r. Fab. lib* Iy. c. 1. Ed. Scholz. torn, iv
pp. 350» 1.
»Ad?. Praz. cS.

That any deterorinate amplidcation of thii confenion (L e. one

including certain fixed and definite points) was nnade bj the

ApoBtles, there is not the illghtett ground to mppoie. The tn*

timonr of the earliest Creeds is certainly oppoeed to inch an

iegree of timilarity there is among them is

' recollecting that commoD fbandation from

, our Lord's precept for bBpti»ii],tbe varii-

' that there was no definite confession formed

by apostolical anthority. And asthetime

LFticles now found in " the Apostles' Creed"

raced, (as we shall prove presently) and as

serted 1^ ecclesiaEtiCat authority, so the

srted may have been placed there by the

stiao Church," sayi L'Ettrange, " knew, 1
ed, DO other conCrauon of fnith, as antece-
itisni . . than that of belief in the Father,
IS was the direction of our Saviour relating'
^rwards, as upsbirtheresieadid administer
les were added in opposition to those false
teachers.'" The same view of this question ii taken by Bishop
StillingfieeL'

"That in Ibe more antient times," says Dr. Barrow, " there
was no one form generally fixed and agreed upon, to omit other
arguments that persuade it, i& hence probable, for that the most
learned and generally knowing persons of those times, when in
their apoli^les against disbelievers for Christianity, or in their
assertions of its genuine principles and doctrines against misbe-
lievers, they, by the nature and sequel of their dMCourse, are
engaged to sum up the principal doctrines of our religion, they
do not yet (as reason did require, and they could hardly have
avoided doing, had there been any such constantly and univer-
sally settled or avowed form) allege any such ; but rather from
their own observation of the common sense agreed upon, and in
their own expression, set down those main doctriuea wherein the
chief churches did consent; as may be seen by divert of them,
especially by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latins, if we cdmpare
several places wherein he delivers the rule of faith, (as he con-
stantly calls it, that ia, such a summary of Christiao principles by
which the truth of doctrines concerning matters therein touched
might be examined;] wherein I say he delivers such rules of faith
to the same purpose in sense, but in language somewhat difierent,
yet never r^erring tti to any ttanding and more authentic

• AniaDM ef DiT-OfficM, Sded.p. 168-

* Vindio. of Doct of Trin. p. tSi.-

ox THZ AimSNT CSBED9, 109

form. Among these forms, that which now passes under the
title of the Apostles' Creed (about which we discourse) seems to
have \teen peculiar to the Soman Churchy and that very ao-
tieDtly, (as to the cMef articles thereof, for it appears that in
process of time it hath been somewhat
addition;) and because it .had been use
that its original composition and use wei
snmed to have derived from the ApostI
that church (as it teas then utual to n
customs to be dedttced/rom apostolical
because the Roman Church (as in comma
two great apostles, Peter and Paul) was
called the apostolical church, and the
bishops tedet apostoliea, so whatever be
obtained the same denomination ; and ami
Aym&o/ might, for that reason, be called sj
that is, symholum ecclesias apostoliea.
piled byjtHnt advice, or by particular c
Apostles, is a conceit sustained by vet
assailed by very strong olgections; as I
trious remarkableness, and of so great *
DO where mentioned in the Apostolic Act

record attested, (and, indeed, had it been so testified, it must
have attained canonical authoritv ;) that it was not received bj
all churches; and that those which used the substance thereof
were so bold therewith as to alter and enlarge it, are considera-
tions ordinarily objected thereto ; but that which most effectu-
ally to my seeming dolfa render such original thereof alt<^ether
uncertain, (and doth amount almost to a demonstration
against it, I mean against the truth, or, which is all one in
matters oj" this nature, its certainty ot being composed by the
Apostles,) is that which I before intimated; viz. that the mofet
antient (and those the most inquisitive and best seen in such mat-
ters) were either wholly ignorant that such a form, pretending
the apostles for its authors, was extant, or did not accord to its
pretence, or did notatall rely upon the authenticalnees thereof;
otherwise (as I before ui^ed) it is hardly possible that they should
not have in most direct and express manner alleged it, and used
its authority against those wild heretics who impugned some
points thereof."'

I conclude this bead vritb the following observation of the Bi-
shop of Lincoln. "The inference to be drawn from a compari-
son of different passages scattered through TertuUian's writii^
ii, thai the Jipoatlea' Creedin its present form wat not knoum

> EipenttoB oa tht Cntd, MU Bm hU wwki, OxC ISie, toL t. pp. SSI— a.

TOU 1. K

110 on TBB AHTIBirr CUIEDS.

to him as a summary qf faith ; but [of which (bere cnn be no
doubtj that the various clauses of which it is compoeed were
generally received as articles of faith by orthodox Christians."'

So little ground has Mr, Newman for his remark, — " This ele-
mentary confesuon [i. e. " 1 believe in Jesus Christ"] seems, even
before the Apostles' death, to have been expandtd and moulded
nd in that form or type it haa remained up to
'he Baptismal Service. I say this was done in (he
s, becaiise history bears witness to the fact, calling
,' ' the Apostles' Creed,' the treasure and legacy of
the Apostles had left to their converts." (p. 260.)
be said to contain "Me/at'M which the apoetleahad
onverts," is very true, f and we can prove it by their
this is no procM (bat the Creed was " moulded into
days of the apostles ; and when Mr. Newman adds
)S done in the Apostles' days, because history bears
e/act, calling it ' the Creed,' ' (he Apostles' Creed,'"
' misrepresents the real state of the case. It is not
till quite the close qf the fourth century that we hear anything
about " the Apostles' Creed." The name (symbolum aposto-
lorum) certainly is given to the Creed about that period by some
writers, but only in the Latin church,' and the period at which
tbey lived is evidently too late to admit of their evidence being
considered as sufficient to establish such a matter. So that from
the time of Erasmus very few authors of repute have maintniiied
the opinion tliat the Creed was, strictly speaking, an apostolicnl
formula. Indeed how to account for such statements from a stu-
dent of antiquity I know not.

That " the Apostles' Creed," and all the other Creeds of the
orthodox, might be said to be " the faith (or, creed) delivered by
the holy apostles,'" "the holy and npostoiicat faith," (or, creed,*)
M they are often cnlled by the Fathers, is no doubt true, becaure
they may be proved from Scripture, but this is very different to
■peaking of the Apostles as theauthorsof the formulae themselves,
which, had it been the case, would have beeh stated by the
Fathers in defence of tbem, and have rendered their proofs of the
statements contained in them from the writings of the Apostles
Qonecenary.

> Efd, Hilt illDitnlrd from TertalliiD, p. SI4.

■I ny Ihiion tha laiharit; of Do Pin, hitniriri Romiaijt

> A«Eptpb»un>Mjior>Cread giwn bj bim ■■ the hiptuBit Cned of bii
chareb, and which diSaia mach botb frocn Ifaal called ■■ iha ApoMln ," and the
rnceiM,— Km am ^n i tmn JHfttte- mm tmr *y,m tnrttim mil m ■wjmc t>
ayit nu( «« ^rrrtm tftai nri tyim mrnvrm 6tif Tfuiarim /•« vn tfiB/dtr. Epiph,
ABCboT. *ab. fin. Up. ad. Peui. r. S. p. 138.

• Ai CjTil calli the Creed which he pre* of the Church of Jenwalem— 'Aw
Ml imrrMu mm;. Cat IB. Ed. Hillaf. p. 371.

on THl AKTIKin CUED*. 1 1 1

Tbe Creed called by us " the Apwtles' Creed," (faerefore, has
got Utat name appropriated to it with us roerely through the
partiaUty of some authors of repute in the La Lid church at the
end of the fourth century to the Creed of their own church, for
it has clearly ao more right to tbe title than the Creeds of the
Orientd] churches, of which the moct antietit extant are those of
the churches of Cassarea and Jerusak
Eusebius of Ciesarea (as already quotec
(both of them, by the way, more antie
whom we have the Creeds of the Lntin
those Creeds a better right to the titU
Councils of Nice and Constantinople.*
in fact, nn exposition by one or' more pa
faith delivered by the Rpostles, (whethf
written tradition is hereafter to be c<
fpradually extended from that simple e
from the eunuch by Philip, (Acts' viii.
faith in the Trinity, to which our Lor

(Matt xxviii. 19) would lead. And mat wnicn is comm<Hiiy
called among us " the Apostles' Creed," we might more properly
name) with Dr. Barrow, the anlient Roman Creed, to distinguish
it from those of Jerusalem and Nice and others, which are equal-
ly entitled with it to the name of the apostles' Creed. And so,
indeed, it is called by RufSnus.' In fact the appellation is mere-
ly due to the spirit in which the Church of Rome has acted front
a very early period,* attempling to obtain currency for all her
rites and usages, by caUing them apostolical.

It is maintained,

3. That what is called "the Apostles' Creed" gradually at-
tained its present form, and that two at least of the Articles it
DOW contains were not iBsefted in it before the fourth century.

It will have been already observed that in the Creeds or con-
fessions of faith just quoted from the works of Irensus and Ter-

1 1 (la not QotiM the Cr««d giTMi bj wHDa writen u ihs antienl OrienUl C»«d,
dcriTed from iha Eipoiition of Ruffinns opon tha Creed, beeauM il ii deriTtd
riam tbsnca merely bf iDrsrcnlial reuoning. Tbe Creed which he tbsce gitei ii,
H be bitneelf tell* ua, the Creed of the church of Aqnilria, bol fcom bii occsaion-
■I notice of aome ditcrapaneiea between that and the Creeda uf Koma and lb*
churcbe* of tbe Eai(, it bu been taken for granted that Iheae latter Creeda were
preciael; tbe aime u that of Aquileii, which be givea, except \a the pMsageib*
has noted. Thii may be ao, bat it ii merel; eanjaclure.

I Tbi> Creed hat in fact b«a called " the Apoallea' Creed" CTen in the Latin
chorch, which ma; inggeat ibe probabKh; that ihi* lille wai not ilwaja JDteaded
to inpJ; that Itie Apoallaa had ilelirered tbe farninla, bat only tbe faith contained
in it. In an anlient minal in a*e ia the Latin ohuich about the yeat 700, it ia
■aid of Ihii-tJreed, " Finiio Si/mboU JpaitaltruiH, dicat aacerdoa," dee. Mih. ad

t.lS67,|h41. Seel"" "

>SM^llabUow.

F

113 OK IBS Anranr cnuBM.

tulliao, tbe £iifli is compriaed in the articles relatiDg to the Father,
Sod and Holj Spirit, none of those which follow in our present
Creed being introduced except that of the resurrection of the
flesh, which is connected with the articles relating to the Son,
nor that of the descent into hell. Such also is the case in all the
Creeds down to that of the Nicene Council, that also included.

For the satisfaction of the reader, I will here add them in the
order in which they occur.

Among them may be noticed the statement made by Origen at
the beginning of bis work, ^' On first principles,'' wherdn he lajrs
down the doctrines maintained, as he conceives, by successional
delivery in the churches from the time of the apostles, though
this statement is hardly to be reckoned a brief summary of the
chief articles of the faith, taking, as it seems, a much wider range.
However the reader will find it in the neit chapter.

There is, however, in a work attributed to Origen a delivery
of such a summary as follows : — ^*' I believe that there is one God
and Creator and Maker of all things, and God the Word derived
from him, consubstantial, eternal, who in the last times took upon
him human nature of Mary, and was crucified and rose again
from tbe dead. And I believe also the Holy Ghost, who is eter*
nal."^ This work, however, is not considered to be a genuide
work of Origen.

The next in order is the Creed of Gregory of Neocaesarea com-
monly called Gregory Thaumaturgus, which he caused to be used
in his own church, and which, if we believe Gr^ory Nyssen'sac*
count in his life of him, was revealed to him in a vision from heaven.
It runs thus : — ^'^ There bone God, the Father of the living Word,
the subsisting Wisdom and Power^ and the eternal Image [of
the Father]. A perfect Begetter of a perfect Being, a FaSber of
an only-begotten Son. There is one iiord, one of one, God of
God, the character abd image of the €rod-head, the operative
Word, Wisdom comprehending the system of the univerite, and '
Power creative of the whole creation, a true Son of a true Father*
invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and im-
mortal of immortal, and eternal of eternal. And there is one
Spirit, who has his exbtence fropo Grod, and through the Son,
was manifested to men, a perfect image of the perfect Son, Life,
the Cause of those that live, the Fountain of holiness. Sanctity^
the Author of sanctification ; in whom is manifested God the
Father, who b above all and in all, and God the Son who per-
vades all. A perfect Trinity, neither divided nor separated m>m
one another in fflory, eternity, or dominion. In thb Trinity^
therefore, there is nothing created or servile, nor anything in-

> Dt racU in Deom fids live Dbl. Contr. Marcion, § 1. Op. Orif . torn. L p. 804.

ON THE ANTISKT OSBXDS. 113

trodaced into it as not existing before and afterwards added to it.
Never; therefore, was the Father without the Son, nor the Son
without the Spirit, but the same Trinity existed always un-
changed and invariable."^

The next is the Creed of Lucian the Martyr, which is as fol-
lows : — *' We believe agreeably to the Evangelical and Apostoli-
cal tradition [i. e. the New Testament] in one God the Father,
Almighty, the Creator and Maker and Administrator of the uni^
verse, of whom are all fhings. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, his
only-begotten Son, who is God, by whom are all things ; who was
begotten bef6re the worlds of the Father, God of God, whole of
whole, one of one, Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Lord of Lord,
the living Word, living Wisdom, the true Light, the Way, the
Truth, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Gate, the inconverti-
ble and unchangeable image of the Deity, the exact image of the
essence, and wisdom, and power, and gl6ry of the Father, the
first-born of every creature, who was in the beginning with God,
God the Word, according to what is said in tbeXjospel, * And the
'Word was God,' by whom all things were made, and in whom
all things consist; who in the last days descended from on high
and was born of a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and was
made man, the Mediator between God and men, the Apostle of
our faith and Giver of life, as he says, ^ For I came down from
heaven, not to do mine own will, but^the will of him who sent me ;'
who sufifered for us and rose again the third day, and ascended
into heaven, and si tteth at the right hand of the Father, and
shall come again with glory and power to judge the quick and
the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to believers for
their comfort and sanctification and perfecting. As also our Lord
Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying, ^ Go and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost,' to wit, of a Father who is truly a Father,
and of a Son who is truly a Son, and of a Holy Spirit who is truly
a Holy Spirit; the names not being applied unmeaningly and to
DO purpose, but signifying precisely the proper hypostasis, and
order, and glory of each of those named, that in hypostasis they
are three but in consent one. Therefore holding this faith even
from the beginning, and holding it to the end before God and
Christ, we anathematize all heretical false doctrine ; and if any
one teaches contrary to the wholesome right faith of the Scrip-
tures, saying, that there is or was a time or season or age before
the Son was begotten, let him be anathema. And if any one
says that the Son is a being created as one of created things, or

1 Gregor. Thaamat Op. Ed. Par. 1622, p. 1., and Gregor. Nyu. Op. ed. Par.
1638, torn. 3, p. 546. Ed. 1615—18, torn. 2, pp. 978, 9.

^

114 ON TRB AiranST CBMKB8.

procreated as one of things procreated, or made as one of tilings
made, and not as the divine Scriptures have delivered each of
the things aforesaid, or if he teaches or preaches anything else
contrary to what we have received, let him be anathema. For
we truly and reverently believe and follow all those things that
are delivered to us irom the divine Scriptures by prophets and
apostles."*

These are the only Creeds that remain of the period anterior
to the Council of Nice.*

In that Council, Eusebius, Bishop of Csssarea, who took so lead*
ing a part in it, gave the following as the antient Creed of the
church of Cassarea, as we learn from his Letter to the inhabitants
of Caesareay respecting the acts of this Council, preserved by
Athanasius' and others.^ ^ The formula, therefore, proposed by
us, which was re^ before our most pious emperor, and approved
as sound, runs thus, — ^As we received from the bishops that were
before us, both in the catechetical instructions and when we were
baptized, and as we have learnt from the divine Scriptures, and
as we have bdieted and taught when holding the office of presby^
ter and in the episcopate itself, so still believing, we lay before
you our Creed ; and it is this ; — We believe in one God the Father
Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible ; and in
one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of 6od^ God of Grod, Light of
Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-born of every
creature, b^otten of the Father befdre all worlds, (or, ages,) by
whom also all things were made, who for our salvation was incar-
nate, and lived among men, and suffered, add rose again the third
day, and ascended unto the Father, and shall come again in glory
to judge the quick and dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit,
believing each one of these to be and exist, the Father to be truly
a Father, and the Son truly a Son, and the Holy Spirit truly a
Holy Spirit, as also our Lord when he sent forth his disciples to
preach, said, ^ Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' "

The Creed published by the Council of Nice (preserved to us
in the letter of Eusebius just quoted and in other works * was as

1 The orgina] of this confession is to be fbnnd in Athanasins, Epist De Sjn.
Arim. at Seleac. § 28. and Socrat. His. Eccl. lib. 2. c 10. A Latin translation of
it is giTon by Hilary in his book De Synodis, § SS. who also vindicates its ortho*
dozy from the suspicion that had been attached to it from its having been re>
ferred to by the Arlans, in which he is followed by Bishop Bull, (Def. fid. Nic ii.
13. 6.) who proves that Lucian was the author of it, and Bingham, (Antiq. book
X. c 4, § 6.)

21 do not notice the Creed inserted in the Apostolical ConstitatioDa, becaose
they are confessedly spurious, and of very uncertain age.

^ Athan. Kpist. de decret. 8yn. Nic sub fin.

4 Socr. Hist. Eecl. lib. 1. c 8 ; TheodoreC Hist Bccl. lib. I. c It ; Slc.

^ Athanas. Epist. ad Jovian. ^. 8. Theodoret. Hist Ecd. lib. 4. c. 3. Soer.
Hist Bed. lib. L c. 8. Basil. M. Epist 1X6. Op. tom. 8. p. 215. Ed. Ben. 6u.

OIT TBB AJIilBIIT CUUUUNI* 115

follow! ; — ^ We beKere in one God the Father Almkbtj, Maker
of aU tbines visible and invisible* And in one Lord Jesus Christy
the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the onlj-begotten, that
is, of the substance of the Father> God of 6od» Lisht of Light,
very God of very God, begotten not made, of one substance with
the Father, by w^om all things were made both that are in
heaven and that aihe in earth, who for us men and for our salva-
tion came down and was incarnate, having been made man, suf-
feredy and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and
shall come to judge the quick and dead. And in the Holy Spirit.
And those who say that there was a time when the son of God
was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that
he was made out of nothing, or those who say that he is of an-
other hypostasis, or substance, or that he is a creature converti-
ble or changeable, the Catholic Church anathematizes."

Now in all these varbus forms it will be observed, that there
is not one of them which includes more than the confession re-
latii^ to the Trinity. And so the Creed is often referred to by
the Fathers, as consisting of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost Thus Cyril of Alexandria says ; — " For he [i. e. Christ]
<^r8 our confession, that is, our faith, which we are also ac-
customed rightly Co make, saying, We believe in God the Father
Almighty, and m one Lord Jesus Christ his Son, and in the Holy
Ghost "^ And again, — ^<^ There is made by us the confession of
the right faith in one God the Father Almighty, and in one Lord
Jesus Cbrbt his Son, and in one Holy Ghost.'"

There is also a passage in the writings of Tertullian, which
seems very clearly to intimate that the earliest Creed or symbol
was only a confession relating to the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit Speaking of the Holy Spirit as the ** leader into all
truth^^ he adds, " which, according to the Christian sacra^
ment, is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost"' The
term sacrament we may observe is applied by other authors also
to the Creed^^ and Ambrose compares it to the soldier's *^ sacrament
^or, oath) of warfare. "*

It was therefore the opinion of Erasmus and Vossius, that the
Creed for more than three centuries did not extend further than

<rof u/ov tfvrou* juu ik t» Ilfw/uui to a>Mf. Cyriil. Alex, De recta fide ed Reg. Op.
•d. Aabert, torn. ▼. P. 3. p. 148.

s <H <r«( ofdnc^tf^ruK ofioxo>M ^rpa/mrui ff^c ifju/f uc Wa 8<e?, x. t. \. Id. ib. p. 168.

s Dedactorem omnii Teritatifl, qoa est in Patre et FiKo et Spirito 8ancto m-
cimdam Ghnstianam tacrameDtain. Adv. Praz. c. 80.

4 As Roffinqs in Apol, adv. Hieron. lib. i. ^ 6. *< aacrainentam symboli" and
Hieron. Ad Pammach. adv. Joann. Hieroe. (See p. 101.)

* Militic tacrament«m. De virg. lib. 8. c. 4. ^ 20.

116 ON THE ANTIBIVT CSBEDS.

4

that ; and their opinion is adopted by Bbhop Stillingdeet ;^ and
certainly as i( respects that collection of articles which the earli-
est Fathers have pointed out to us as comprising the chief points of
Christian doctrine, and called ^* the rule of faith," it is clear from
the passages quoted above, that it did not extend further than
that confession.

But then this rule of faith was not during that whole period
identical with the confession required to be made at baptism; and
it appears to me that the want of this distinction has occasioned
much of the disagreement which appears in the various accounts
given of the history of the Creed. The Creed or Rule of faith^
as given by the earliest Fathers, comprised only the articles re-
lating to the Trinity, (if we except that on the resurrection of
the flesh,) and in that state probably formed for some time the
whole baptismal confession, that confession being, as we have
seen, derived from our Lord's precept for baptism (Matt, xxviii.
19, 20,); but it seems clear that from an early period there were
generally added to that confession some other points, which
though not at first inserted in the Creed, formed the subject of a
separate interrogation at baptism.

Thus Tertullian, in his Tract on baptism, says, ** But when
both the declaration of faith and the promise of salvation were
pledged by the Three, there is necessarily annexed the mention
of the church, since where the Three are, that is, the Father, and
Son, and Holy Spirit, there is the church, which is the body of
the Three."-

And Cyprian still more clearly intimates that such was the
case ; — "It," he says, *'any one starts this objection, that Nova-
tian retains the same form of baptism which the catholic church
holds, that he baptises with the same creed as ourselves, that
he acknowledges the same God the Father, the same Son the
Christ, the same Holy Spirit, and consequently that he may
assume the power of baptizing, because he seems not to differ
from us in the interrogation used at baptism, let such an one, who-
ever thinks to object this, know first, that there is not one and
the same form of Creed to us and the schismatics, r^or the
same interrogation. For when they say, ' Dost thou believe
the remission of sins and life eternal through the holy church?'
they speak falsely in the interrogation, since they have not a
church."'

I Viodication of doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 2t5, 6.

* Qaom aalem tub Tribui et tettalio fidei et sponaio salntii pignerentur, necee-
sario adjicitar Eccleais mentio, quoniam abi Trea. id eat, Pater et Filiua et Spiri-
tut Sanctna, ibt Eccleaia, qas Trium corpus est. De baptismo, c. S. See also ell.

9 Qaod 81 aliqaia illod opponit, at dicat, eamdem NoTatianam legem tenere,
qnam Catholica Eccleaia teneat, eodem ajmbolo, qao et noa, baptizara, eumdem

ON nOB ANTIBNT CitXBM. 117

And again; ''The very interromtioD which takes place at
baptism is a witness of the truth. For when we say, * Dost thou
believe in eternal life and the remissicHi of sins through the holy
churchy' we mean that remission of sins is not given but in the
church/'*

In the first of these passages Cyprian clearly seems to distin-
guish between the symbol or Creed containing the confession re-
lating to the Trinity from the interrogation relating to ^* remission
of sins cmd life everlasting through the holy church,'' or at any
rate his words imply that these points were the subject of a dis-
tinct and separate interrogation. And by a passage in the letter
of Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, to Cyprian, this matter is placed
almost beyond doubt, where, speaking of a baptism performed by
certain heretics, he says, '* To which neither the Creed of the
Trinity, nor the legitimate interrogation, and such as is used by
the church, was wanting."*

The points noticed in the above passages, then, were clearly
subjects of interrogation at baptism at an earlt/ period, but they
did not then form part of that summary which was called '' the
rule of faith," which, as derived from our Lord's precept for bap-
tism, was at firet kept distinct from these additions, and always
held to be the most important part of the baptismal confession.

We may add also to the preceding testimonies that of Cyril of
Jerusalem.^ For in his fourth Catechetical Lecture, he says, —
'' But before the delivery of any comment upon the faith, it seems to
me to be desirable now to give a compendious summary of the
necessary doctrines, (t«v ttfmyxmtttf }#>^r«y)." He then proceeds
to give the doctrines relating to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
as in the Creeds already quoted, and then immediately adds, —
'' Retain this seal, (or, symbol or mark, ^f^ii^) ever in thy

mind And after the knowledge of this venerable and

glorious and holy faith, (or Creed, wtmrni) know also thyself,"
&c* »

none Deam Patrem, enmdem Filium ChruMiai, eamdem Spiritam Sanctam, ac
propter hoc neorpare eom poteatatem baptizandi poaae, quod Tideatar in interroga-
tione bapCisnii a nobia non diacrepare, aciat, quisqaia hoc opponend^m putat, pri-
mum Don eaae anam nobia et achiamatida aymboli legem, neqoe eamdem interto*
gationem. Nam qnam dioant; * eredia remiaaionem peecalonim et Titam etemam
per aanctam Eccleaiam/ mentinntar in interrogatione, qaando non babeant ecde-
aiam. — Cm. £p. ad Magn.

1 8ed et ipaa interrogatio, qns fit in baptianio, teatia eat Toritatia. Nam quam
diefanaa, ' Credia in Titam stemam et remianonem peocatomm per aanetam Bode-
aiam,' intelligimoa remiaaionem peccatoram non niai in Eocleeta darL*— Ejvai». £p.
ad Jannariam, dec.

s Cai nee aymbolam Trinitatia neo interrogetio legitime et eeeleaiaetica deftiit
£p. 76, inter Cjpriani £p.

a Cyr. Hieroaol. Cat. 4. §^ 3 and IS. pp. 46 and 66. ed. Millaa. (£d. Par. 1631,
pp. 24 et 30.)

118 ON TVS ▲NTUEMT CREBIM.

Proceeding, however, in the subsequent Lectures to comment
upon the confession required at baptism, he says, that after the
confession of faith relating to the Trinity, (his followed. " In one
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one holy
catholic church, and in the resurrection of the fiesh^ and in the
life everlasting."*

So that even in the time, of Cyril, in the middle of ihe fourth
century, there was a distinction between the confession relating
to the Trinity and that required at baptism.

But from about this time the distinction appears to have been
very much lost sight of, and the whole of the confession required
at baptism was spoken of as the Creed, the Rule of faith.'

Further; it appears from the Creeds we have already quo-
ted, that even in the part relating to the Trinity, an article which
occurs in the (so called) *' Apostles' Creeds" viz. that relating to
Christ's descent into hell, formed no part of the primitive summa-
ry of the articles of the faith. The &tst Creed in which it ap-
pears was^one published by the Arians at the Council of Arimi-
num, A. D. 350, which had also been previously exhibited by them
at the Council of Sirmium.' It is also to be found in the Creed
of the church of Aquileia, given by Ruffinus^ towards the close
of this century, who, however, also tells us that this addition was
not to be found in the Creed of the Roman church, nor in the
churches of the East' This article, therefore, was not intro-
' duced into the Creeds of the Roman and Oriental churches until

I after the fourth century. That it was a doctrine taught by the

f Apostles* and Fathers ^ there can be no doubt, but it was not in-

[ serted in the summary of the chief articles of belief for several

I centuries.

I Passing on to the consideration of the articles that follow that

^ relating to the Holy Ghost, and considering the Creed as we find

[ it when including points not relating to the Trinity, we find not

[

i Id. Cat. 18. § 11. p. 269 (EJ. 1631. p. 230)

< Since writiog Uie abote, I have found that Dr. Waterland favonra the view
taken above of the brevity of ihe original Creed, and its being distinct from the
confeeaion required at iMptitm. See his "Importance of the doctrine of the
Trinity," c 6. Worka, toI. v. pp. 160, 161.

'Socr. Hilt. Eoc. lib. ii. c. 37. Keu it *tm, «9iTfli;^6eiiM iutTi\6orrat. And aee lib.
u. c 41.
I * Expoa. in Symh. Apoat.

ft ** In Eccleaia Romane Symbolo non habetar additum deteendit ad infema ,*
aed neqoe in Orientia Eccleaiia habetur hio aermo." Expoa. in Symb. Ap. § 20.
> « AcU ii. 27. Eph. iv. 9.

7 Cyrill. Hieroa. Cat. 4. § 8. p. 53. (Ed. 1631. p. 27.) Epiphan. Adv. H«r. lib.
iii. in Expoa. Fid. Cath, § 17: Ireo. lib. iv. 27. ed. Masa. c. 45. ed. Grab. And
aee Enaeb. Hiat. Eocl. lib. i. c. ult* where an account ia given of the preaching of
Thaddsua at Edeaat of which thia article fovmed one topic* Othera are mentioniKi
by Pearaon. .

ON THS A2ITIEKT CRKED8. ] 19

a little diversity io their phraseology and number in the earliest
forms in which they appear.

Thus in the article relating to the church, the roost antient
Creeds have only the words " holy church," the word "catholic"
having been added by the Greeks.^ And, what is more worthy
of remark, the article of the " communion of saints" is not to be
found in any Creed or baptismal confession of the first four cen-
turies, nor in many of those of a subsequent date. Its earliest
occurence, perhaps, is in the 115th and 181st of the Sermones
de Tempore erroneously ascribed to Augustine.

It is maintained,

4. That the Creeds of the primitive church were derived
originally from the holy Scriptures.

In proof of this [ will point out, first some internal indications
of the earliest Creeds having been derived from Scripture.

Thus, in the first creed given above from Irenseus, in addi-
tion to the fact observable at a glance, that the whole tone of
the phraseology is remarkably scriptural, we have in one part
a direct quotation from Phil. ii. 10, 11. The way in which it
is made also, without acknowledgment, seems an additional proof
how completely Scripture was the guide throughout, if indeed^
any other than the general phraseology were wanting. I sub-
join the original below, with one or two references to Scrip-
ture in illustration of the scriptural nature of the phraseology,
and the language may in other parts, as any reader conversant
with the Greek Testament will see, be easily traced to the same
source.'

1 See Pearton in loe.

ToxpdvropA nir irvrounurA tov w^of kou mv ytn km rof Bco.at0-ac, iuu mcrr« *rA §t' avtoic,
{9ee Acts iv. 24 ; xiv. 16.] »w*r<ir' km Mr ifa Xpw^of Ua-euvy [See 1 Cor. Tiii. 6, which
reference I give on the authority of (he following passage in Roffinns. ** Orientie
Ecclesie omnes ita tradant, * Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem ;* et
roraum in seqoenti serroone, nbi nos dicimus, * Et in Jesom Chrbtam, nnicam
Filiam ejus, Dominum Nostrom/ illi tradunt, * Et in unum Dominum Noatrnm
Jeeum Chrtstum. Filium ejus.' Unam scilicet Deum et onum Dominam, «ecufi-
dum auctofitutem PauU JtpottoU profitentit** Ruff, in 8ymb. § 4. and see § 1 1.
A remarkable obaerration this fo^ one who tells da elaewhere that the Apostles
drew up the Creed.] tov Ctn <rot/BMi/, toy cAfiuiBnrA Cirtfi nif ifjunp^u rmrufuu juu tic
Unujuix ttr^ufy to iTia TOff inopmmr MtMttfvXd Tttf cuorciJtULt, tuu t«c 0Juwui, tuu Ttn m
iroflHrw ywmvtty nm to ^ctooc, mu tuv ry^fjtt ix vfic^«y, sou Tin m^a^Kot uc taut oufcuovt
ttm>Jt^49 tw MynarnfjMoo Xfiffrw haw *nv Kv^/ev iumy juu m ul rmt wftnm tr t« /cfn
nw n^ifTfOf [Matt jn. S7 ; Mark viii. 38.] irtuouctM» tu/rwt vrt <ro «CMutif«AAM<rA^6«u
*rm wiuntLt [Gpb. i. 10.] xau tam^mtri wna-xt ff-duxA nuvnt Ard^^Mronrror, Utt X^tm Uvw
*tu ILuftm ifAmy tuu 0«», luu rmn^ juu AdurUsju^ iuvra *rnf wf^KULi tov JlwtfOt roc; «o,««to(/>
9rM9 y^ xAfA'^jn troupA¥tmf km tmyam xm »xrA^^tm, km inura. yymrvA t^ofJt^xtyimTtu
mnm, [Phil. li. 10. 11.] km KU0't9 itMuea » tok 'Jrmft vronowrM' tm. ftm inm(*m/rtKA th
ww»pm(i KM AyyiKwi ff'«i^«M^xo'r«cc, km tt danvTAffut >t>«PCTi((, km tm/c aur%^< km
tUtiiws KM Afofjiwff KM 0KttiT9KfJtwe Tm At^pmrm tti to Mmmi vup m/A^M' *tm A lutMoUy
KM o#ie<c, KM Ti«c WTex«(c «vTov TtTi^Jcotf'/, KM w m aytun myrw i'utfAtfAtntKo^t, to<c «^

AgaiD, in the third of the, Creeds quoted Above from Ter<
tullian, we have two maDifest quotatiooB Trom scripture. "There
is also," it raiu, " a Sob of that one God, nanwlj Am Word,
who proceeded from him, by whom all things were tnade, and
vnthtmt whom nothirig wiu made." Id the b^inning," says
his Gospel, <* was the Word, and the ^^rd was with
hy him all thiiigt toere made, and without him
\g made that was made." (John i. 1, 3.)'
those words, " that he sudered and was dead and
ordiiffi to the Scriptures, and raised again b; the
Father,"* it is evident from other passages of the Treatise where
this Cnjed occurs, that there is an allusion to 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.*
And this is parlicuUrlv observable in the fbnnnla we are
now coniiderii^t because it is of this that Tertullian says that
it bad come down from the beginning of the Gospel, for it
clearlj shows that it is of the faith itself delivered in it that
he is speaking as having been the rule of belief from the be-
gioning, and not of the particular form or summary he is de-
livering, and that for a description of that fnith he went to
Scripture>

Proceeding to Ibe Creed given us by Origen, we find nmilar
indications of tbe source wheuce it was derived. Besides seve-
ral passages in the body of it, showing from tbe phraseology, (as
it appears to me,] that the author had Scripture in bia eye as
his guide,* there is one direct quotation from Scripture, namely
in these words, "Who a(ter he had administered to tbe Father
in the creation of all things, for by him all things were' made,
in the last times bumbling himself" &c,, referring to John i. 3.'
As it respects the Creed of I^ucian the martyr, there can be
no doubt of the way in which it was drawn up, as it not only
pro/esses throughout to be derived from Scripture, but refers to
the Scripture as the alone rule of faith, the alone source from

wVKi ■»!( tt u iirmwit, Anr viywutirK afSww tmtumvi uu /ofw iuiihw tnu-
wmn. I.in. AdT. Har. lib. i. c. loi ed. Mui. e. S, Gd. Gnb*.

1 ■■ Filial 8enD0 ipnni, qai ai ipto proccweril, per qaan ODiDia ficta lant et
nns qao laclnin Nt nibil." Tertatl. 'O tirytc ■ ■ ■ IIuTit A' mmu rymm- lui X"?"
arttv rymr, hJ', • • yry*»' (Joha u 1, 8.)

t • Hone piHam, Iiddc mortaam at Mpallum MCtutdnm Beriptotu M rMaiei-
tiniD t Pitre,"

* Ad*. Pru. «. 39. Al«a o. IB, sf the nme TrutiM, when it ii nid, "qaen
noitnm contMUlnr, [i.e. PialD*,] •ecnndum Scriplani."

* Tba loM of Ihi origiail Greek renden the ■imiliritj probablj Ian itiihing,
bul the reader maj oompare the foliowtng, •• 8icul par prophataa anoa ante pn*
miaeial." Acta iii. 18. " Miait Daminnm Noatram Jaaam CbriMom piino qni-
den Tocalamm IhmL" (AcU iii. SS.) " Aola onDam oraatnrnin nalna" (Col. i.
15.) ■* aa ipaam •xinanieiw.'' (Pfatl. u. 7.)

I Qui qnDB in omaiaia Maditiona Pitri miniitreiMt, fer ifinm cnim Mania
/atta fine, nnij^iiiii lenpodbu m ipram, &«.

OH THB AlfTISmr CBXBD8. 121

which the faith was to be derived, and upon the authority of
which it rested, and that not only as it respected the Church as a
body J but as it respected individuals in it, for this, be it remem-
bered, is a creed drawn up by an individual, and collected out of
the Scriptures.

From an inspection^ then, of these, the earliest Creeds that re-
main to us, I think we may fairly conclude that the early church
went to the Scripture as the source from which to fbrm their
•* Creed-**

I do not, however, rest this conclusion upon such evidence alone,
but upon direct testimony in favour of it, such as appears to me
tolerably decisive.

In the first place, Irenaeus, when speaking of the misquotations
of Scripture by which the Valentinians supported their errors,
observes, that ^ he who retains the rule of truth immovable which
he received in baptism, will recoenize the words, and phrases,
and parables (referred to by the Valentinians) as derived from
the Scriptures, but will not recognize the blasphemous hypothesis
as so derived.'** Consequently, '* the rule of truth** received at
baptism, was either Scripture itself or a confession derived from
Scripture ; and immediately after this passage follows the Creed
or confession we have just referred to as given by Irenaeus, and
which by all authors whom I have yet seen is considered to be
the " rule of truth** previously spoken of.*

Further, Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the Creed of his church,
writes tbu8,^*'For since not all are able to read the Scriptures, but
some are prevented by want of learning, others by want of leisure,
from obtaming a knowledge of them, that the soul may not perish
through ignorance, we comprehend the whole doctrine of the

faith in a few sentences And at a proper time obtain

from the divine Scriptures the proof for each one of the articles
contained therein, for the articles of the faith were not^ as it
9eemSf composed by men, but the most suitable passages hav'
ing been collected together out of the whole Scripture^ fur*
nish one exposition of the faith.^

> Ibkv. Adv. bar. lib. i. c L tub fin.

*To my miod, howe?er, the oonteit •eaint rttber to tbow tbat Uie '< rate of
irnth" wm ScripUire itself, for I tee not bow tbe <* words and phrsaes and part«
Mes" quoted by tbe Valentinians from Scripture eoold be recognised tbrougb tbe
aediam of any brief confession of faith ; in wbicb case of course tbe argameot
ftom tbis passage for tbe soriptoral origin of tbe Greed falls to tbe ground ; bot
tbe passage becomes still more important in another point of view.

1S2 0X1 THS AXimifT CBBKDS.

This testimonj is clear and explicit, and coming from such a

Juarter as it does, is upon such a point of no little weight Nor
oes it stand alone.

In the Latin Church we have first the testimony of Augustine.
** This," he says, ** is the Creed which ye are about to recite and
deliver. Those words which ye have heard are scattered
throughout the divine Scriptures^ but collected thence and put
together, that the memory of men of slow understanding might
not fail, so that every one might be able to say and retain in his
mind what he believes."^

Again, in one of the homilies attributed to Eusebius, a French
bishop, and by others to Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, (both of
whom flourished in the early part of the fifth century,) we have
the same testimony. " The Fathers of the churches,^' he says,
*^ anxious for the salvation of the people, collected together out of
the different books of Scripture weighty testimonies to the
truths of religion. Providing, therefore, a wholesome feast for
the food of souls, they collected together words few and definite,
brief in phrase but containing many mysteries, and this they
called the Creed:'''

And that this opinion as to the source from which " the Creed"
was derived became common in the church, we may judge not
only from the statement made by these authors being repeated
in substance by others,* but from the fact that some even of those

Tofc <rT/;^oic to frtn i'oyjuM inc ma^uK frtfOXAfK^ofjitf . . . EhJ^xov h *dt/t* Tor hsrrti
tuufiof Tur «9V rav Bum yp^u^m mpt i ucttov tw tyMtfinm ^ua^rtta^n. Ou ytttf^ ok o^f fv»
MjfBaciTroti rvriTidif t« <rjrc tria^Timt, axa' i» ta9ii< yp^tK ta xaUfii*T«Tat 9vK\i^B§irrA fxut9
*r«wrxiipoi Tiff TJKino^mt ^A0-iuiA/«cy. Cyrill. Hierosol. Cat. 6. ed. Millet. § 7. pp.
7ft, 8. (Ed. Pari*. 1881. pp. 4i, 5.)

I Hoc eat symbolum quod recensuri estia et reddiUiri. lata verba que audiatia
per divioaa fioripturaa aparaa aunt ; aed inde collecta et ad unum redacta, ne tar«
doram bominuro nemoria laboratet; ut omnia botno posaitdicere, possit tenere,
quod credit. Aug. De Symb. Ad. Gatech. c. i. Op. ed. Bened. torn. ti. col. 547.

< " Eccledarum palrea de populorum aalute solliciti, ez diveraia Tolaroinibaa
Scripturarum ooHegerunt teatimonia divinia gravida aacraroentia. Disponentea
itaque ad animarum pastuiii aalubre convivium collegerunt verba brem et certa,
ezpedita aententiis aed dilTuaa royateriia, et hoc ftymbolum nominaverunt.*' And
a tittle af^er.^" Eccleaiarura magistri, atudioaisaimi aalutia noatne negotiatorea, in
Scn'pturia danctia de magnia maxima aeparaverunt mentium in pagina inacribenda,
Qt cuilibet cordi, quamlibet angucto, quamlibit rustico, aine ulliua difficultatia im«
pedimento facile inainuari posak veritatia agnitio." Enaeb. Gallic De aymb.
faomil. prim. Biblioth. Patrurti. Col. Agripp. 1818. torn. v. p. 1. p. 552.

9 Thua Thomaa Aquinaa, in reply to the difficulty, — ** Videtur quod inconveni*
enter articuli 8dei in aymbolo ponantiir ; aacra enim acriptura eat regula fidei coi
Dec addere nee aubtrabere licet .... ergo illicitum fuit aliquod aymbolum con-
aiituere quaai regulam €dej poat aaeram Hcripiuram editam*'— aaya — ** Veritaa
fIdei in aacra Acriptura diffuae continetur, et variia modia, et in quihaadam
obarurp, ita quod ad eirciendum fidpi veritatem ex aacra acriptura reqoiritnr Ion-
gum atudium et exercitium, ad quod non poaaunt pervenire omnea illi quibaa

ON in ▲imSHT CUfelMU 123

I

writerd wbosptak of the Creed as if it hud been compost by the
Apostles, tell us that it was collected by them from the Scrip-
tures,^ a notion which no doubt is sufficiently absurd, but which
shows how general was the belief that it was derived from the
Scriptures.

Upon the whole, then, there can, I think, be little doubt how
this summary of the faith was formed, and whence it was collec-
ted.
It is maintained therefore, —

5. That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an
apostolical production.

The truth of this follows immediately from the proof of the
foregoing positions. Neither as a formof words nor as a sum-
mary of the faith is any one of them entitled to be considered
as of apostolical origin. Th^l the orthodox Creeds, as convey-
ing the faith delivered by the apostles, may all, in a sense, be said
to be of apostolical origin, especially as derived from the writings
of the apostles, is quite true, but this is all which can be justly
claimed for any of them in respect of npostolicity.

This view of the history of the antient Creeds may enaWe us
to judge of the accuracy of Mr. Newman's observations on the
subject, in his ninth and tenth Lectures. His object is to find
out an authoritative digest of the essentials of the Gospel. This
be thinks is supplied by •• the Creed," and to clothe it with full
authority, he resolutely maintains that this digest was made by
the apostlesi and as it is convenient to include all the Articles of
all the orthodox Creeds down to the Constantinopolitan (commonly
called the Nicene) Creed, so we are somehow or other to suppose
that they are all identical, though, as might be imagined, there
are some contradictory statements upon this latter point ; and
having thus jumbled the formulae of four centuries and all
churches together, with all their discrepancies, (treating even the
Creeds of Irenseus and Tertuilian as identical with the Const{<n-
tinopolitan) and speaking of them all as one formuluy he adds,
" I say, then, that the Creed is a collection of DETimrvi articles
SET apar't fROM THE FIRST, passing fpom hand to hand," <&c.
(p. 296.) And these ** definite articles" are the essentials of the

r

I , ■ '

necMMriam est cog^oiccre fidei veritatem ; qaoram pleriqne aKis negotiis occuplitl
studio vacare Don possunt : et ideo fuit neceaaariam ul ex aenteniiis aaere 8e<ip-
tnrs aliquid mtfnifeatam aummarie colligereuir, quod proponeretar omnibua ad
credendum, quod quidem non eat additum sacrs Scripture, aed potiua ex aacra
Scriptura aamptmn.** — See Sec. q. 1, art. 9. See also Durand. in 3. diat. 25, q. 2,
I " De totia acripturia hac breviatim coUecta auot mb apoatolia, ut, qooniatai
plurea crcdentium literaa neaciaut, vel qui aciunt pr» occupatione acculi aciip-
turaa legere non poasnnt, hoc corde retinentea, habeant ■uflScientem aibi acientbm
aalntarem.*' Rah. Maur. De instit. cleric, lib. 2. c. 56. See also Paachaaiua
Ratbertoa De Spir. 8k in pr«f. qooted by Voaaiua, De tribua Symb. pp. 4, 5.

1^ OK TBI AlfTnm OB

Gospel, the fundamental articles of the Christian iaith. Thns,
after haying spoken of the Apostles' Creed, the Creeds of Irenaeus
and Tertuiiian, and that found in the Apostolical Constitutions, he
adds, speaking of them all, — ** We find it [i. e.. the Creed]
digested inform, limited in its topics f circumscribed in its
range^ one and the ^ame everywhere" (p. 265) ; and still more
explicitly, <* Irenseus, Tertuilian, and. the rest, cite the apostles*
Creeds and say, ^ this is the faith which makes a Christian, the
essentials of revelation, the great truths of the Gospel,' " &jc. (p.
267.) And so, though the docrine of baptism is not alluded
to in the Apostles' Creed, yet because it is c<mtained in the form
agreed upon at the Council of Constantinople^ (and elsewhere,)
it is said that in *' the Creed" *^ the doctrine of baptism is ex*
pressed in an article,*' (p. 266,) and the variations are treated as
mere *^ varieties in the detail," not *' interfering with the sub-
stantial identity," so that ** we must consider the Nicene and the
Apostles' Creed as identical." (pp. 27Q, 271.)

Now that the orthodox Creeds all contained, as far as they
extended^ the same faith, and were so far apostolical and identi-
cal, is most true, but that they are identical as formulae, or as
collections of certain definite articles, as Mr. Newman has intima-
ted, and which alone would answer his purpose, or that the arti-
cles of which they are composed were *' set apart from the first,"
is manifestly and on the face of it a mistake ; as the preceding
historical notices of the facts of the case have fully shown.

Before concluding this chapter, however, I would offer a few
remarks upon the notion here advocated by Mr. Newman, (which
is also supported by Mr. Keble,) that *' the Creed" is a selection
of the fundamental articles of the faith; and also consider what
we are to understand by the name *' rule of faith," applied by the
early Fathers to the Creeds which they delivered.

Mr. Newman says that '* the Creed" is '^ the abstract of saving
faith," (p. 286,) and holds language respecting it implying that it
is a selection of the fundamental points of the Christian faith.
The same appears to be Mr. Keble's view of it.

Now this language seems to me to require (to say the least)
considerable mmlification, and to be calculated as used by these
authors to lead to very erroneous views of the matter. There is,
I believe, a sense in which it may be said that the Apostles'
Creed contains the elentents of the Christian faith in the funda-
mental points. But that it contains all the fundamental points,
or is exclusively an abstract of these particular points, cannot I
conceive be maintained.

If we were to judge by the Creeds of Irenaeus and Tertullian,
and the testimony of the early Fathers, as above quoted, we must
suppose that the fundamental faith was limited to points connec-

ted with the nature aod acts of the Three Persons of the God-
head.^ Indeed we are toid by Tertullian and Athaimsias, as we
have seen, that the whole faith is founded upon and may besiim«
med up in an orthodox confession relating to the Three Divine
Persons. And to the passages there quoted many others nright
be added to the same effect.

Thus Basil says, ** For baptism is the seal of faith, and faith is a
belief in the Godhead."-

And as an orthodox belief in Christ includes a belief in the
whole Trinity, so the Christian's faith is sometimes spoken of (as
in Scripture) as included in a belief in Christ. ** God," says Hilary,
'^ does not call us to the life of happiness by means of points dim*
cult to be understood, nor allure us by a multiplied kind of flow-
ing eloquence. Eternity is placed perfectly and easily within
our reach. We are to believe that Jesus was even raised from
the dead by God, and confess bin) to be the Lord."'

Thiis also speaks Augustine ; — " When therefore it is inquired
what is to be believed which pertains to religion . . • . . it is
sufficient for a Christian to believe that the cause of things Crea-*
ted, heavenly or earthly, visible or invisible, is nothing else but
the goodness of the Creator, who is the one and true God, and
that there is no nature which is not either God hiniself or frotn
him ; and that he is a Trinity, namely, a Fatherland a Son begot-
ten of the Father, and a Holy Spirit proceeding from that same
Father, but one and the same Spirit of the Father and the Son."*

There is also a remarkably clear passais^e in the Exposition of
the Creed by Ruffinus upon this point. ^'From all these things,"
he says, ** let the faithful turn away his ears : and let him adhere
to the holy church, which confesses God the Father Almighty,
and his only begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and the Holy
Spirit, of a concordant and consonant kind of substance, and he*
lieves that the Son of God wa« born of a virgin, and suffered for

1 Neither the articles of the church, tho commaoion of taints, nor baptitm, are
noticed in the Creeds of Irenicus and Tertallian, nor in the aeleciion of "necet-
tary articles*' given above from Cyril of Jerusalem.

2 Etti yup TO 0xrrtruA T9petyi; rut mrrk»t-, i A tio^h StyriKroc Tvyxdu^ttAiO'm. Adv.
Eanom. lib. iii. § 5. ed.Bened. torn. i. p. 276. (Par. 1618. torn. ii. p. 84.)

8 Non per diffi^les nos Dens ad beatam vitam questionei vecat, nee maltiplici
eloqaentia faeandis genere soUicitat. In absoluto nobis ac facili est atenutas ;
Jesum et auscitatum a mortuis per Deam credere et ipaum eaae Dominum con-
fiteri. Hilar. De Trinit lib. 10, sub', fin. ed. Bened. coU 1080.

< Cam ergo querttar quid credendum sit quod ad religionem pertineat • . •
8atis est Christiano rerum creatarum causam sive cslestium sive terrestrlum siv9
visibilium sive invisibilium non nisi bonitatem credere Creatoris, qui eat Deus
anus et verus, nullamqae esse naturam qu» non aut ipse sit aut ab ipso; eumque
esse Trinitatem, Patrem scilicet et Filium a Patre genitum et Spiritual Sanctum
•b eodem Patre procedentem, sed nnum eundemqu^ tdpiritum Patrii et Filii*
Eilchirid. ad Laor. c 9. vi. 198.

♦l.

Iff #21 TBI Amemrr

the la] vatioD of man, and rose from the dead in the same iBeib kt
which he was boro« and trusts that the same will come as the
judge of all ; in which [cAurcA] both the remission of sins and the
resurrection of the flesh is preached/'^ The reader will observe
the distinction here made between the fundamental faith of the
church, and theprivileges promised by the ministers of the church
to that faith ; and that the fundamental faith is a belief in the
Father, Son, and Spirit, in their revealed nature and acts.

A still more remarkable passage occurs in the Acts of the Coun*
cil of Nice. A philosopher disputing with the bishops and others
at Nice, previous to the meeting of the Council, was encountered
by an aged and unlearned confessor, not with argument, but with
a simple declaration of ^ the doctrines of the truth,"* which he
gave m the following words,—" There is one God who, having
made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that
are in them, and having formed man out of the earth, sustained
all things by his Word and Holy Sjpirit. This Word, O philoso-
pher, knowing him to be the Son of God, we adore, believing that
for our redemption he took flesh of a Virgin, and was bom and
made man ; and that by the sufferings of his flesh upon the cross,
and his death, he rescued us from eternal condemnation, and by
bis resurrection obtained for us eternal life ; who, having returned
to heaven, will, we expect, come again, and be judge of all those
things which we have done."

The philosopher, upon being asked by the confessor whether
he believed these things, replied in the affirmative; upon which
*< the old man said to him, If thou believest that these things are
so, arise, follow nr>e, let us hasten to the church, in which thou
mayest receive the seal pf this faithi" and the philosopher arose,
followed him, and was *' baptized and united to the church of
God," and " the Synod rejoiced at the wonderful works of God."»

We have here, then,,a clear proof that the essentials of the
baptismal Creed were, even at the period of the Council of Nice,
conridered to be comprised in an orthodox confession respecting
the Sacred Trinity.

Judging from these passages, we should conclude that the early
church considered that in a full and orthodox belief in the nature

> ** Ab hit, inqnam, omnibus fidelis declinet tnditai; sanetam vero Eccletiam
ttnatt, qum Deum Patrem onanipotenteni et unigeDitam filhim ejaa Jeaam Ubria-
tvm Doininum noatram et Spiritom Sanctum concord! et conaona aubatantia
raiione profitetnr, filiumqae Dei natam ex Tirgtne et paaaom pro aalute haroana,
ft raanrrexiaae a mortnia in eadeak came qaa nataa eat, credit y enndemqoe vtntu-
nifll jndicem omniam aperat, in gua et remiaaio peccatoram et earnia reaarrectio
prmdicatur.** Expoa. in Symb. arL '* 8anctam Eccleaiam."

a Oelaa. Cyaic Acu. Gone Nic Part S. e. 13. pp. 90—93. ed. 1599. The
aecooitt u given bj Hoxomen, HlaU EccU i. 17.

r

ex mm Amnowr cwbm. 137

aad acti of tlie Fatber, SdD, and Holy Soirit, as reprefented to
ui b? IM?iiie revelatioOy was included a belief io all the eueotiab
oTCaristiao doctrioe*

Now if this IB the caae, (upoo which questioD, however, I shall
not here enter,) the Apostolical, Nicene, or Constantinopolitan
Creed, would be, in one sense, too long to be called a selection of
the 6iodamental points, for th^ embrace points not connected
with articles relating to any of the Persons of the Sacred Trinity.

But it will be admitted by all, that whether these points are
fundamental or not, all essentially important points connected
with the orthodox doctrine relating to the Three Persons of the
Sacred Trinity, are fundamental^ and conseauently that these
Creeds are too short to be called a selection of the fundamental
articles, for they do not contain all those points. They need to
be greatly expanded to answer that character, and a wide field
for amplification is opened on n^any important points. Who will
undertake to enumerate all the heretical notions that might be
connected with, and vitiate, a professed belief in Christ ? Now,
as many heretical notions as there are that might be entertained
respecting his person and work, so many fundamental points are
there connected with this article alone* And the Creed appears
to have been gradually expanded as heresies arose in the church,
and expanded only as those heresies might seem to render it
necessary. As, for instance, the Arian heresy was the occasion
of the insertion of the article of the consubstantialily of the Son
with the Father ; and this article, though fundamental, was not
expressed in the Creed till that time, and consequently all the fun-
damental articles were not previously expressed in the Creed ;
and as thb fundamental article was not there for some centuries,
80 are there others, equally fundamental, that have never been
inserted.

True, this article, as well as that of the descent into hell, is sup-
posed to have been always implied, though, not always expressed,
and doubtless it was implied in an orthodox belief respecting the
Son. And so also may other articles be said to be equally implied,
though circumstances did not seem to the early church to require
a further amplification of the Creed by the enumeration of other

E>ints ; as, for instance, the doctrine of justification, and others,
ut the question is not whether a person of orthodox belief would
carry out the meaning of the Creed so as to include all the funda-
mental articles of the faith, for this such a person would do in the
case of k much shorter confession ; biit whether the Creed gives
expression to all the fundamental points of the faith, so that
either in words, or by virtue o{ direct and necessary inference,
they are all to be found there.

Moreover, when we come to draw out the points included in

it, may not some be fandamental, and othen not ? So that net
only ii there no easily ascertninable limit to the points included,
but further direction is needed for the ctanification of those points,
and the determining which are fundamental, and which not.
Hence there may be many fandamental points not mentioned in
the Creed, and there may be some in tbe Creed (as, for instance,
the article of the descent into hell) which are not absolutely
fundamental.

There is do reiison, indeed, to suppose, that the early churches
ever considered their Creed to be any more a selection of the fun-
damental points than the words of our Lord, Matt xxviii. 19, SO,
upon which it was founded ; and they certainly had no authority
to determine what they were, if they had attempted to do so.'

How far Mr. Newman feels the weight of these difficulties to
press upon his hypothesis, may be judged by the following extract
from his work: — "How much, then, or how little, doctrine is
contained in the Creed X What extent and exactness of mean-
ing must be admitted in its articles by those who profess it 1 What,
in fact, after all, is that faith which a required of the candidates
for baptism, since it is not to be an acceptance of the mere letter
of the Creed, but of a real and living doctrine ! For instance, is
the <loctrine of original sin tote accounted part of the Creed?
or of justification by faith 1 or of election ? or of tbe sacraments ?
If so, is there any limit to that faith which the Creed represents ?
I answer, there is noprecixe Hmit."{p. 303.)

Surely, then, it is a mistake to say, as Mr. Newman does, that
"the fundamental or essential doctrines are those which are con-
tained in the Creed," (p. 25!)) ; as if the Creed was a selection of
the fundamentals of the faith.

Putting aside, then, the question whether the articles added
in the Apostolical, Nicene, and Constantinopolitan forms, beyond
those relating to the Sacred Trinity, are fundamental or not, it
does not appear that those Creeds are a selection of the funda-
mental points, even as far as the confession relating to the Trinity
is concerned, but only an orthodox amplification, as far as they
go, of the Christian faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
giving expression particularly to some points which had been
misrepresented by prevailing heresies. All that could be said of

of the primitiTacburcheiii no doiifat of^til nae and weight
their jutlgmenl muit flnallj ba aabmiltcd to tbe tnt ot Scrip-
n,.an(l eiDootba ■dmiited but u BODMinBnt ihanio, it ii Tcr;

of ■ rundamenttl rnti not ultimBtelj in ihair judgminl or
e Datura of the doclriae ttielr, anil the credential! which it
lleh all the reit mait b« tried. The definition, tbereforr.eien.
rcbea, can neoer be juitl^ Inoked Dpon na the proper or ade-
tland, Diacof FDodam. (Worki, Tiii. IDG.)

ox noB Aimszrr cxbim. 129

ai^ of these Creeds in tbk req>ect is, that it cires the
articles of the Christian faith, and contains &e mdimental ele-
ments of the whole faith,* and may thus be called a summary of
the Christian faith, as all the vital points of the faith may be con-
nected withy and made to enter into, the right interpretation of
its articles ;* but then this leaves the question of what are the
fundamentals of the faith, the essentials of the gospel, almost as
much open as ever.

Moreover, we must ask our opponents, if one of these Creeds
is to be taken as a precise list of the fundamental articles, which
of them it is; for to talk of a Creed which takes not the slightest
notice of the articles, for instance, of the church and the commu-
nion of saints, as being identical with another which contains
them, is manifestly absurds And when they have pointed it out,
they will only have involyed themselves in a fresh difficulty, by
being left to give a reason for the omissions or additions in the
others ; for their position is, that what was given in each of those
Creeds was given as representing the fundamental articles of the
faith» And to endeavour to escape from this difficulty, by declar-
ing that they are all identical, is an attempt which none but
time wedded to a hypothesis could ever have made.

Without entering, then, here into the question, what in parti-
cular are the fundamental articles of the faith, certain it is, that
*^ the Creed" is not a selection or representation of them ;* except
in the sense in which it may be said that belief in Christ is the
only fundamental article, or that our Lord's words, Matt, xxviii.
19, comprise the whole fundamental faith; in which sense, of
course, the appellation is not worth disputing about to either
party. v

Moreover, since ** the Creed" is proposed to us apparently as
the interpreter of Scripture, to teach us the fundamentals of the
faith, we may take this opportunity of asking in what point the
language of ^< the Creed,'' take which you please, is clearer than
that of the Scripture. Those who are so inclined, can make
heresy harmonize with the one as easily as with the other. Nay,
8t Augustine says, '' So also it may happen that a catholic cate-
chumen may light upon some heretic's book, and, unable to dis-
cern error from truth, may believe something contrary to the
catholic faith, which errors nevertheless, the wards o/the Creed

1 Af the Apottlef' Creed it fpoken of by HnffioiM m oonttiniDf ^ fnmm fidei
•lemenu.'* Expoe. in Bjmb. art, <* Cmeifixos," ice,

> Thus it if raid in the ** Reformatio legnm ecclee.^ of the Apoetolictl, Nicene,
ud Athanaaian Creeda, ** iata tria ajmb^a ut fidei noatrs etmp^ndiu gumdam
rtcipiaiQactamplectiBiar.*' (Tit. 1. c. 6.)

• On the qaeation, whet are the fandamental artiolea of the faith, the reader may
seo Wnerlaad, Stapfor, Spaaheiai, See.

18d oif THs Ajmrnmr cBxsDt.

do not oppose ;Jbrf binder the sam^ wordsy innumerable errors
of heretics h(we arisenJ'^ Nay more, the Socinians themselves
have contended Tor the apostolical origin of the Apostles' Creed,
and argued from it that the Apostles did not hold the divinity of
the Son and Holy Ghost, because they have not there (as they
maintain) expressly taught it"

The antient Creeds, then, (to proceed to the second point on
which we proposed to offer a few remarks,) being thus brief sum-
maries of the chief articles of the Christian faith, were justly
called by the Fathers the rule of faith. Even the Creeds given
by IrenaBUS and Tertullian are called so, as containing the prime
articles of the faith, in the right explication of whicfh, in full
meaning and consequences, all the vital articles might be includ-
ed. They were so called as expositions of the faith publicly pro-
fessed on the chief points in the primitive churches, just as the
symbolical bodks of the Church of England, the Lutheran Church,
&c., form the rule of faith to those churches respectively, (the
Lutheran being called the Normal books^), differing only in the
degree^ not in the nature^ of their claim upon us ; their degree
of claim upon us being greater from their being sanctioned by the
primitive catholic church, whi^e the nature of their claim is the
same, i. e. of a secondary and entirely subordinate character,
depending upon their conformity to the Divine will, to be judged
of by us by their conformity to that revelation of the Divine will
which we possess in the inspired Scriptures. And hence the
Creed is sometimes called by Augustine the '^ confession^* of faith.^

1 8ic etiam fieri potent ut in alicujue hteretici libram catholiccM catechamenus
iDcidat, et a veritate Desciens discernere errorem credat aliquid contra catholicam
fidem, cui tamen errori verba symboli non repugnant, sub ii^dem quippe verbis
innomerabileii bsreticorum errorea, ezorti sunt. De Bapt, eontr. Donat. lib. 3.
c. 15. ix. 115.

2 Bishop Stillingfleet's ViDdio. of Doctrine of Trinity, p. 234.

3 " Veteres aymbola etiam ;r/«mjf, fx^^wynff ^/*^iac regulam fidei vocabant,
quemadmodum et apud no3 interdum Ubrorum normalium nomine veniunt.'*—
** Pro norma qdadam ac regula ISdei sed secundaria habeantur [i. e. libri symbo^
lici] quo vim omnem atque auctoritafem a conven'ientia cum Sciiptura sacra aoci*
piat .... Atque ita quoque accipiendum qaando librt symbolici in quibuidaofi
locis normales adpellitantur." Budd. Isag. in Theolog. vol. i. p. .395. and p. 476.

* " Hoc nisi credamus, periditatur ipsum nostre Con/eaaionit ^nitium, qusB nos
in Deum Patrem oronipotentem credere confitemar.*' Enchirid. ad Laurentium*
defide, Ac. o. 94. torn. vi. coi. 231.

431

CHAPTER V.

THAT PATKISTICAL TRAPITION IS WOT A " PRACTICALLY INFALLIBLE"
WITNESS OF THE ORAL TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES NOR RECEIVA-
BLE AS A DIVINE INFORMANT.

SECTION I. — PRELDflNARY R^ARKS.

We now proceed to a consideration of the five points in which,
as we have already observed, (pp. 40, 1,) the doctrine of onr
opponents upon this subject is contained ; and we shall in this
chapter endeavour to prove, in opposition to the firsty that pa-
tristical tradition is not a ^* practically infallible" reporter of the
oral teaching of the apostles, nor receivable as a divine inform-
ant.

This question lies at the root of the whole controversy, and a
proof of what we here maintain cuts away the ground alt(^ether
from under the feet of our opponents, and leaves them without
any foundation to r^^t upon. It demands, therefore, a full and
attentive consideration.

When our opponents refer to patristical tradition as a divine
informant, they are not to be understood as attributing any au-
thority to the Fathers in themselves as individuals, but only as
witnesses of what they had received from other? ; and the pa-
tristical tradition which they regard as a divine informant is not
(i. e. in theory) that which is delivered by one or two Fathers,
but that which is delivered by the consentient testimony of all
the Fathers; which they dignify, by the name of "catholic con-
sent," and it is to this " catholic consent" alone that in theory
they attach the notion of a divine informant.

The practical rule for ascertaining this ''catholic consent'' is
taken^ by them from Vincent, a monk of Lerins, who lived in the

' Sm! Newman*! liectaret, p. 63, aud Keble't Sermon, pp- 33, 3, &o.

132 PATHIBTICAL TBADITIOH

fifth century, bj whom it is thus delivered* f quote from the
translation Utely published at Oxford under the sanction of our
opponents.

** We are to take great care/' he tells us^ << that we hold that
which hath been believed every where always and of all men ;
for that is truly and properly catholic (as the very force and
nature of the word doth declare) which comprehendeth all things
in general after an universal manner, and that shall we do if we
follow universality, antiquity, consent. Universality shall we
follow thus, if we profess that one faith to be true which the
whole church throughout the world acknowledgeth and confess-
eth. Antiquity shall we follow, if we depart not any whit from
those senses which it is plain that our holy elders and fathers
generally held. Consent shall we likewise follow, if in-this very
antiquity itself we hold the definitions and opinions of all, or at
any rate almost all, the priests and doctors together. What then
shall a catholic Christian do^ if some small part of the church cut
itself off from the communion of the universal faith ? What else
but prefer the health of the whole body before the pestiferous
and corrupt member? What if some new infectkm goeth about
to corrupt not in this case only a little part but the whole church 7
Then likewise shall he regard and be sure to cleave unto an«
tiauity, which can now no more be seduced by any crafty novelty.
What if in antiquity itself, and amongst the antient Fathers, be
found some error of two or three men, or haply of some one city
or province? Then shall he diligently take heed that he prefer
the universal decrees and determinations of an antient General
Council, if such there be, before the temerity or folly of a few.
What if some such case happen where no such thing can be
found? Then shall he labour, by conferring and laying them
together annongst themselves, to refer to and consult the antient
Fathers* opinions, not of all, but of those only which living at
divers times and sundry places, yet continuing in the communion
and faith of one catholic church, were approved masters and
guides to be followed (magistri probabiles)\ and whatsoever he
perceiveth not one or two but all jointly with onet:onsent, plainly,
usually, constantly to have holden, written, and taught, let him
know that this without scruple or doubt he oqght to believe.'^
(cc. 2, 3.)

Such is the rule to which our opponents refer us for ascertain-
ing "catholic consent."

To guard against misapprehension, I would at once premise,
that to these observations, taking them generally and as pointing
out a useful practical guide in the interpretation of Scripture, I
am far from ofiering any objection, and cls such they have been
quoted by many divines of our church. I am quite ready to ad*

NO DIYINS INFOBVANT. 138

mit, nay, I would firmly maintaiD, that the concurrent testimony
of many of the great lights of the primitive church in favour of
any particular interpretation of Scripture in a fundamental
point is the strongest possible confirmation of the truth of that
interpretation! and the opposition of any view on bl fundamental
point to the sentiments of all the Fathers that remain to us, is of
itself a good reason for its rejectioo.

But this is a view of the matter totally difierent to that taken
by our opponents. With them all which stands the test of this
rule is to be considered '^ catholic consent," and as such a divine
informant, and is consequently binding upon the conscience as a
matter which demands our faith. How far Vincent himself
agreed with our opponents in this we shall consider hereafter,
when reviewing the sentiments of the Fathers on this subject.

Now it is evident, in the first place, that this rule, in its prac-
tical application, must be subject to ooany restrictions and limita-
tions; and accordingly we find that in the latter part of the trea-
tise Vincent himself admits as much. Nay, he makes an im-
portant restriction (to which our opponents have paid little at-
tention) as to the rubjects respecting which this patristical tra-
dition is to be inquired into. For he tells us that *^ this antient
consent of holy Fathers ia not so carefully and diligently to be
both sought for and followed in every small question of the divine
Law, but only, or, at least especially, in the rule of faith?^
(c. 28.) And a^in, — <' It is necessary that the interpretation
of the heavenly Scripture be directed according to the rule of
the church's understanding: only be it observ^, especially in*
those questions upon which the foundations of the whole catho-
lic doctrine do depend." (c. 29.)

Beyond a few fundamental points^ then, he does not con-
sider this antient consent much worth inquiring after.

Still further, even in these, when he descends to the descrip-
tion of the practical mode of finding this antient consent, he is of
course driven to make various restrictions and limitations
and at last to admit that this antient consent is in fact the con-
sent of some dozen individuals who are taken as the representa-
tives of some dozen millions.

*' Neither yet," he adds, '' are heresies always nor all after this
sort to be impugned, but only such a^ are new and upstart;
to wit, at their first springing up and before they have (as hin-
dered by the shortness of time) falsified the rules of the antient
£iiithy and before that, the poison spreading further, they go
about to corrupt the Fathers' writings; but tnose heresies which
have already got ground, and be of some continuance, are not
this way to be dealt withal ; because by long tract of time they
have had loi^ opportunity to steal the truth. And therefore

VOL. 1. K

134 PATRMtlCAX. TSA^moif

such kind, whether of profane schisms or heresies, >vhich be of
longer standing, we must not otherwise convince but only, if
need be, by the authority of the Scriptures ; or else avoid and
detest them as already convicted and condemned in old time by
general councils of catholic priests. ..... But those Fathers'

opinions only are to be conferred together, which with holiness,
wisdom, and constancy, lived, taught, and continued in the faith
and communion of the catholic church, and finally deserved either
to die faithfully in Christ, or happily for Christ to be martyred:
whom notwithstanding we are to believe with this condition,
that whatsoever either all or the greater part with one and the
same mind plainly , commonly, ancLconstantly, as it were in a
Council of Doctors agreeing t<^ether, have confirmed by receiv'
ing it J holding it, and delivering it; let that be accounted for
undoubted, for certain and acknowledged truth. And whatso-
ever any, although holy and learned, although a bishop, although
a confessor and nmrtyr, hath holden otherwise than all or against
all, let that be put aside from the authority of the common pub-
lic and general judgment, and reputed among his own proper,
private, and secret opinions, lest with the utmost danger of our
eternal salvation, we do, according to the custom of sacrilegious
heretics and schismatics, forsake the truth of the universal doc-
trine, and follow the novel error of some one man.*' (c. 28.)

And further on, recapitulating these means for determining
the truth, he adds, <* Lest any man mieht think that we said this
rather of our own presumption than from any authority of the
church, we give an example of the sacred Council holden almost
three years since at Ephesus, a city in Asia, in the time of the
right honourable consuls, Bessus and Antiochus, in which dispu-
tation being had of authorizing Tules of faith, lest there might
by chance some profane novelty creep in, as happened at that

f perfidious meeting in Ariminum, this was thought the most catbo-
ic, faithful, and best course to be taken, by ail the priests there
present, which were about two hundred in number, that the
opinions of those holy Fathers should be brought forth, of whom
it was certain that some of them had been martyrs, some confes-
sors, and that all had lived and died catholic priests, that by their
consent and verdict the true religion of antient doctrine might
be duly and solemnly confirmed, and the blasphemy of profane
novelty condemned: which being so done, that impious Nestori-
us was worthily and justly judged to have taught contrary to the
old catholic faith, and blessed Cyril to have agreed with holy
and sacred antiquity." And he then proceeds to give us the
names of the Fathers according to whose judgment ^* the rule of
divine doctrine*' was established, which were, Peter, Athanastus,
and Theophilus, Bishops of Alexandrian Ghregorj of Nazian-

Ko pivnni niFOBKAKT* 185

zuniy Basil of Gfiesareaf and Gregory of Nyasa^ Felix Martyr and
Julius, Bishops of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, and Ambrose of
Milan, addiue, " albeit a far greater number of Fathers might
have been alleged, yet was it not necessary, because it was not
fit that the time of business should be spent with multitude of
witnesses ; and further, no man doubted but that those ten did
think little other than all the rest of their colleagues." (c. 80.)

Such is " catholio consent" at its very best. The testimony
of ten witnesses, whose remarks upon a question not in their
mind at the time will probably be more or less indirect, with an
accommodating ^' &c." and an intimation that no doubt the rest
agreed with them 1

The fact is, that when we come to the practical application of
the rule, we find ourselves beset with endless difficulties, and
hence it was that Vincent himself wa3 obliged to clog bis rule
with so many exceptions and limitations^ as to lead Bishop Stil-
lingfleet (one of our opponents' best referees) to make the remark
we have already quoted, that '^ wise men, who have thoroughly
considered of Vincentius bis way, though in general they cannot
but approve of it so far as to think it highly improbable that
there should be antiquity, universality, and consent, against the
true and genuine sense of Scripture, yet when they consider this
way of Vincentius, with all those cautions, restrictions and limi-
tations set down by him, (1. I, c. 89,) they are apt to think that
he hath put men to a wild-goosb chase to find out any thing
according to his rules ; and that St. Augustine spake a great
deal more to the purpose, when he spake concerning all the
toriters of the churchy * that although they had never so much
learning and sanctity, he did not think it true because they
thought sOf but because they persuaded him to believe it truCf
either from the authority of Scripture or some probable rea-
son.' "*

And so in another place he says, *' The utmost use I can sup-
pose, then, Vicentius his rules can be of to us now is in that case
which he puts when corruptions and errors have had time to
take root and fasten themselves, and that is, By an appeal to
Scripture and Antient Councils. But beoausjb of tbb charge
OF innovation against us, we are content to be tried by his
second rule, By the consent of the Fathers of greatest reputation,
&c."«

The period over which the inquiry for this catholic consent is
to extend, is left by our opponents altogether indefinite, but ap-
parently it includes about the first five or perhaps six centuries.'

1 Rational Account of Groundf of Protestant Religion, 1666« p, 279, ,

s Council of Trent examined, Sec, p. 24.
• See Newman's Lecturei, pp. 24 1-^9,

1 86 PATRXmCAX TRADinOlf

Mr. Newman seems contented with the first fonr, for be says,
^< If the voluminous remains of that era, including the works of
Ambrose, Austin, Jerome, Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nvssen,
Gregory Nazianzen^ Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem, will not
afibrd a standard of catholic doctrine, there seems little profit to
be gained from antiquity at all.'' (p. 246.)

A less period than this our opponents have already found (like
the Romanists) would not at all answer their purpose. ' And
they have practically confessed that their Creed depends for its
patristical proof upon the writings of the fourth and fifth cen-
tury. For thus writes the author of tract 85.

*< In both caseSf [i. e. " the canon of Scripture,'^* and " the
catholic doctrines^^'] ** we believe mainly because the church
of the fourth and fifth centuries unanimously believedJ* —
** IFe depend for the canon and creed upon the fourth and
fifth, centuries. We depend upon them thus: as to Scripture,
former centuries certainly do not speak distinctly, frequently, or
unanimously, except of some chief books, as the Gospels ; but still
we see in them, as we believe, an evei^rowing tendency and ap-
proximation to that full agreement which we find in the fifth.
The testimony given at the latter date is the limit to which all
that has been before given converges. For instance, it is com-
monly said, exceptio probat regulam ; when we have reason to
think that a writer or an age would have witnessed so, and so,
BUT FOR THIS OR THAT, and that this or that were mere accidents
of his position, then he or it may be said to tend towards such
testimony. In this way the first centuries tend towards the
fifth. Viewing the matter as one of moral evidence, we seem to
see in the testimony of the fifth the very testimony which every
preceding century gave accidents excepted, such as the pre-
sent loss of documents once extant or the then existing miscon*
ceptions which want of intercourse between the churches occa-
sioned. The fifth century acts as a comment on the obscure
TEXT of the centuries b^ore it, and brings out a meaning which
with the help of the comment any candid person sees really to
belong to them. And in the same way as regards the catho-
lic creedf though there is not so much to explain and account
for. Not so much, for no one, I suppose, will deny that in the
Fathers qfthe fourth century, it is as fully developed and as
unanimously adopted as it can be in thefifth^^ (pp. 102, 3.)

Mow as it respects the canon of Scripture I say nothing here,
because this will form the subject of a future chapter, but as it
respects what the Tractator calls " the catholic creed," this pas-
sage appears to me worthy of the reader's especial notice, as
throwing very considerable light updn the true nature of ••catho-
lic consent," and the testimony of *' every body, always, every

no 9IVI1IB mroBVAJiT. 187

»

wh«*e.'* In the writmgs of the whole of ibt first three centu*
ries, it fleemsy we get, not a proof of our opponents* verrion of
'' the catholic creed/' but only something that in their "view
tends towards it, something which, when we interpret it by the
writings of the fourth and fifth centuries^ seems, accidents
xxceptsd/' to mean what the writing^ which we have selected
as the interpreter express^ though it must be admitted after all
that it is but an '* obscuri^ text." So that if we were even to
add the writings of the first three centuries to Scripture to ob*
tain *' the catholic creed," we should only get an obscure com-
ment upon the obscure writings of the Apostles, and should not
find what we wanted until we admitted the light of the fourth
and fifth centuries to interpret the obscure comment up<m those
obscure writings. The Tractator, therefore, justly remarks,
that ''we," i. e. he and those who think with him, '^believe
mainly because the church of the fourth and fifth centuries
unanimously believed," *<we depend for the canon and creed
upon the fourth and fifth centuries."

Tbe reader will observe how completely this coincides with
the ground taken by the Romanbts. And in the following pas-
sage he will see what was the view taken of their conduct in
this respect by one of the best of our opponents' own witnesses.

" I know," says Bishop Stiltingfleet, " some of the greatest pa-
trons of the Church of Rome, and such who know best how to
manage things with best advantage for the interest of that church,
have made little account of the three first ages, and confined
themselves within the compass of the four first Councils, upon
this pretence, because the books and writers are so rare before,
and that those persons who lived then had no occasion to write
of the matters in controversy between them and us. fiut if the
ground why those other things which are not determined in Scrip-
ture are to be believed by us and practised as necessary, be, that
they were apostolical traditions^ who can be more competent
judges what was so, and what not, than those who Uvea near ^
est the apostolical times? and those certainly, if they writ of
any thing, could not write of any thine of more concernment to
the Christian world than the knowledge of such things would

be."*

We might at once, then, on the ground of such admissions as
these, demur to the doctrine of our opponents, and reply that
these admissions are altogether fatal to Uieir cause. For to claim
for their creed the consent of every body, always, every where,
in the catholic church, even such a universal consent as proves
its apostolical origin, and makes that consent a divine informant

I Bttiooal Accoimt of Groonds of Proteitant RoUgion, p. S6S. ed, 1665.

138 PATRISnCAL TBADinoir

or practically iorallible reporter of the oral teacbii^ of the Apos*
ties, and then to admit that all the writings that remain to us of
the first three oentaries form but an obscure text^ tending only,
even in their vietVf towards the confirmation of their creed, and
needing to be interpreted by the writings of the fourth and fifth
centuries to make it really speak that creed, has so much in it of
direct self-contradiction as to leave one, not in hesitation about
the matter itself, but only wondering what can induce men to put
forth such statements.

The purity of the motives by which the Tractators are influ-
enced I call not in question. They are desirous of inducing men
to embrace what they believe to be the truth, and therefore eive
the most high-sounding names to the -testimony by which they
think it is established, and hope thus to induce men to embrace it.
Mr. Keble in particular reminds us bow it would tend to ''exempt
us once and for ever from haunting doubts,'' if we would but be
convinced '' that the Nicene tradition is true and diviruJ*^ In a
word, bow comfortable it would be to come to the conclusion, no
longer to give ourselves any trouble in deciding between the
claims of conflicting doctrines, but pin our faith at once upon cer-
tain individuals.

And with many minds their scheme is suited to succeed. It
exempts men from the trouble of thinking. It afiects to place
them under the direction of an infallible euide. It entangles
them in the mazes of a magnificent vocabulary of words which
delieht, perplex, and ensnare them, and out of which they often
neimer wish nor are able to see their way. But they must ex-
cuse others if they look a little further into the nature of the testi-
mony they adduce, and call things by their right names, and not
suppose that any thing is gained by shutting their eyes to the
real state of the case, and building their faith upon words instead
of realities, upon claims to the consent of every body, always,
every where, when upon investigation the " every body" turns
out to be not one in a million, the " always" not one for every
quarter of a century, and the " every where" not one for each
country; to say nothing of the fact that there is hardly a doc-
trine respecting which we do not get conflicting testimonies.

But leaving the reader to judge how far these concessions of
themselves overthrow their cause, I shall now proceed to point
out the various grounds upon which we reject the notion of our
opponents, that what thev call '' catholic consent," is a certain
informant of the oral teaching of the Apostles.

> See p. 184

iro Divm x]rFosiiAifT« 189

axcTioif n.— no miobsx of gombbut tbb kivowlidob of which u

▲TTAIXABJJB WOXTHT OF BBINO C0N8IDBBBD A DiyCOB INFOBMANT,
OB CBBTAIIf WITNB8S OF THB OBAL TBACHIIIO OF THB AP08TLBS.

The great argument upon which the system of our opponents
is founded, is, that catholic con^en/ in Me u;Ao/eprimitive church
for several centuries in favour of any doctrine or interpretation
of Scripture or other point, is a sure proof that it was derived
from the Apostles, for that otherwise such consent could not have
been found in such a widely scattered body. Consentient pa-
tristical statements, they say, must have had a common origin in
the teaching of the first preachers of Christianity/

This is the theory upon which their whole superstructure is
built; and in words it is no doubt plausible enough, and sufficient-

? likely to captivate any man who will take words for realities,
here is a natural anxiety to know something of the doctrines of
the early church, and he who finds a few remains of the primi-
tive doctors, almost naturally pleads for them as a sufficient testi-
mony to demonstrate the primitive faith ; just as a zealous anti-
quary, upon the testimony of a few relics accidentally turned up,
will pronounce upon the state of the arts at the time when they
were executed. What, moreover, could be more convenient and
desirable, than to have such a standard of appeal for the termina-
tion of controversies, as the consentient testimony of the whole
primitive church ? It is quite refreshing and delightful, in (he
present state of the church, to contemplate the existence of such
a court of appeal. The mind is at once attracted to the notion
by a recollection of the benefits that might arise from it ; for
mark how the argument rilns, — This or that is a doctrine or view
which was held by all the members of the whole churchy {sem-
per, ubique et ab omnibus,) everybody, always^ everywhere, for
the first three or four centuries. What an overwhelming argu-
ment against a man who presumed to controvert it ! But are
you quite sure, he will say, that everybody always everywhere
for the first three centuries did hold this view ? The church was
very widely spread during that period. Millions were included
within it, and had but little intercourse with one another. You
must have vast means of information. Are you quite sure that
there were none who took an opposite view of the matter? Can
you answer even for ten in every hundred T Yes, quite sure of

1 Tber« !• alio another groond on which Mr. Nowman aeems to claim for aach
content the authority of a divine informant, namely, the promisee made to the
church, which are tuppoaed to have aecared infallibility to it, while it remained
one and untKvided, See Newman'a Lectures; 8, pp. 224, dec. But without
entering upon a diacunaion of the question here involved, our reply in the fol-
lowing work to the claim made for catholic consent* on the ground mentioned
above, equally meets this ease.

1 40 FATROnOAL truhtioh

*' everybody always everywhere," «ay our opponenls 5 so miieh
80, as to have made this universality of consent the very ground-
work upon which our claiin for the certainty of the witness as
a correct record of the oral teaching of the Apostles is founded.
Well, then, there is no help for it, but that be who does not wish
to unchristianize all the members of the catholic church who
lived immediately after the times of the Apostles, must, if (he
point be an important one, accept what such a body of Chris-
tians unanimously held, as beyond controversy the truth of God.
For it cannot be supposed that all the Christians of the first ages
of the church were in error ; and therefore, what they all agreed
in must be, in important points, that true faith which it is every
good man's wish to embrace. For the true faith must in all ages
be the same ; and therefore the belief of true Christians in all
fundamental points must be the same now as in the first ages of
Christianity. True catholic consent, then, might well <ponclude
us, and though perhaps not altogether derived from apostolical
tradition or teaching, would, as true, be identical with it

And in this, but no other, sense did our learned Bishop Morley
erant, in his Conference with the Jesuit, that the church was in-
fallible. " If," said he, " by the word church were meant all
Christians in allplaceSy he would willingly grant that the church
in that sense did never, nor could never, err in any point of faith
or manners absolutely necessary to salvation."^

And this might be granted for the present as much as for the
antient church.

And it is remarkable that Bellarmine himself, when driven to
an explanation of what is meant by the infallibility of the church,
states it thus, — *^ The church cannot err, that isj that which all
believers hold as of the faith, is necessarily true and of the faith,"
respecting which there cannot be two opinions among those who
suppose that there has always been a succession of individuals
in the church holding the true faith. And when he adds, — <* And
likewise that which all bishops teach as belonging to the faith
b necessarily true and of the faith,"t we should not, perhaps,
think it worth while to raise much dispute on the abstract ques-
tion.

So far we fully agree with our opponents. Only let them prove
anything by Vincent's rule, and we will most submissively accept
it. No wonder that those who take words as realities, and think
they know what everybody always everywhere in the church of

1 SeTeral Trettiies, Ac^ No. 1. p. 6.

sEccIefU ROD potest •rrare, id est, id qaod tenent omsM fidelM taniqD»m de
fide neceMario eit yemm tX de fide ; et nmiliter id qood dooetit omnee Epiteopi
umqaam ed fidem pertinene necetetrio eet Teram et de fide, Dt Cone, et JBccIee,
lib. 8. c 14.

HO DIVfllB nrFOBMANT. HI

Christ thought for several centuries respecting any matter, should
dogmatize about it, and anathematize dissentients. There is, in
fact, only one objection against Vincent's method of proving a
doctrinei namely, that its application in that strict sense which
would make it capable of producing a proof, is utterly impracti-
cable. That the principle of it, indeed, is applicable, to a limited
extent, I am far from denying ; and that its application to that
extent is useful, as afiording a probable and confirmatory argu-
ment for the truth, is also not to be doubted. Nay, in any point
put forward as vital, it may well be required that we should be
able to show, from the records of antient times, that the doctrine
we maintain, though we maintain it from Scripture, is not a
novelty, but was held in the primitive church ; which is a safe-
guard against the dreams or enthusiasm, and so used by the
Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, whose appeal to this
patristical testimony in their favour is often incorrectly taken as
supporting the doctrine of our opponents respecting " tradition."
But to a very limited extent only is Vincent's rule applicable in
any case, and therefore the certainty which would follow from
it, if we were able fully to carry it out, is not attainable.

For let us consider what is the practical application which can
be made of this rule. As it respects the number and value of
the records remaining to us of the primitive church, I shall speak
in the next section. But my object here is to consider the ques-
tion generally. Let us look around us, and view the church as it
exists in the present day, when the facilities of intercourse are
such as no former period ever enjoyed. What sort of application
could we make of Vincent's rule at the present day, even for the
generation now living ? How should we be able to ascertain
what doctrines were held by everybody everywhere ?

And if we go back to the times of the primitive church, the
difficulty is a thousandfold greater ; for we have nothing to de-
pend upon for those times but the writings of a few antient
Christian authors. So that I see not why, for fundamental points,
we should not rather seek the catholic consent of some age near-
er our own, of which we know more than of the first ages of
Christianity. For if, as our opponents maintain, and I am by
no means disposed to question, there have alwavs been, and al-
ways will be, some true Christians in the world, real catholic
consent, or that which all believe respecting fundamental points
in any age^ must be the orthodox faith, for otherwise the true
Christians, who form part of this total, must be in fundamental
error, which is absurd. But the truth is, that in no generation
is the argument derived from this source applicable^ because the
knowledge of that catholic consent is not attainable.

And as Dean Sherlock justly observes, <' It is absolutely im-

149 PATXUTICAX TKADmOK

possible that the catholic church should be represented, for the
cathoUc church ii the whole multitude of Chriatians, conddered
as the whole company or multitude; now a multitude) as a
mullitude, can never be represented by anything but itself; there
can be no formal nor virtual multitude, but the whole entire
number. The catholic church BlgniQes all ChriBliani,and if you
leave out any of the number, it is not all, and therefore is not the

catholic church Anything less than all makes it cease to

be catholic ; and therefore the catholic church cannot be repre-
sented by a few of the whole number, because a few are not all,
and therefore not the catholic church,'"

So that, on the notion that the catholic church Is an infallible
guide, he remarks, — "We do say, and we may safely say, that
there always has been, and ever will be, a visible church; for
here are any men who visibly profess Christianity, ttiere
a visibte church. And what then? 'Whatthenl Why
lu must hear the church, then you must submit to the au-
of the church, then you must believe as the church be-
. and receive your faith from the decrees and definitions of
the church.' But pray why so ? Has every visible church this
authority 7 No, but the catholic church has. Suppose that ; but
how shall I speak with the catholic church, which is disperaed
over nil the world, and is nothing else but the whole nvmber
of Christians all the world over? Now it seems impossible
for me to speak with all the Christians in the world, and to know
what their belief is in all matters of controversy ; and though
the catholic church is visible, -and part of is to be seen in £ng-
land, and part in Holland, and part in France, Slc, yet no man
can see it all tc^ether, nor speak with all the Christians in the
world together ; and therefore, though the catholic church be visi-
ble, it cannot determine any one controversy, unless there be some
visible catholic tribunal from which we must receive the faith of
the whole chiirch [which he has before proved that there is not].'"
Hence we may observe, that though we should admit, (as,
indeed, we willingly do,) that there is a sense in which the church
may be said to be infallible. Or indefectible, in the fundamental
points, it does not follow that the church is capable of being an
infallible guide to us in such points; a distinction which the
Tractators seem entirely to have overlooked.

It must never be foi^tlen that all the promises of Christ to the
church would he fulfilled by the existence of a succession of in-
dividuals in the external church attached to the true faith.

> Diie. CODC nitnre, nnil^, &e, of cbnreb, pp. 44, S ; or in Bidiop GiliMn'a

KO DIVZlfi; INFOBXAHT. 143

This is distioclly admitted by Mr. Newman bimselC and is an ad-
mission fatal to his doctrine of the church catholic being in any
sense an infallible guide, for then it follows that we must absolute-
ly collect the suffrages of every individual Christian before we
can be certain of the orthodox faith, and therefore, as Bishop
Taylor says, ''If by the church they mean the communion of
saints only, though the persons of men be visible, yet because
their distinctive cognizance is invisible, they can never see their
guide, and therefore they can never know whether they go right
or wrong."^ Nevertheless thus speaks Mr. Newman, — "The
promise that the word of truth should not depart out of the mouth
of the church is satisfied in what we see fulfilled at this day,
viz. in the whole church, in all its branches^ having ever main-
tained the faith in its essential outlines; nay, it might be satis*
fied evenin a much scantier fulfilment^^-/or instancey though
this were allf which many think to be its highest meanings
that there should always be in the church so^e true believer s.^^*
And this admission makes the statement that " the whole church
in all its branches has ever maintained the faith in its essential
outlines," a mere assertion requiring proof of its truth, indepen-
dently of what any number of christian churches or communities
can give. The public standard of faith in a church being regu-
lated by the ruling power, may become corrupt even in essential
points, while at the same time some of the members of that
church adhering to the written word, and taught by the Spirit,
though united in external communion with a corrupt church,
through the effect of circumstances, or from mistaken notions of
church communion, may preserve the pure faith. And this we
hold to be in all probability the case in the Church of Rome.
That there were such persons in that church before the Refor-
n^ation is very capable of proof. And of these the Protestants
are the successors. " Even in the times of the greatest and most
general defections," says Bishop Sanderson, ^' there have been
always particular men, and those eminent either for number,
place, learning, or godliness, who, though living in the midst of
corrupt churches, and in the communion ana visible profession
thereof, have yet, according to the measure of their grace and
knowledge, and the exigence of times and occasions, either first,
openly resisted the errors, superstitions, and corruptions of their
times; or secondly, noted the corruptions as they grew, and com-
plained of them and desired reformation ; or thirdly, in private
dissented from them in the explication of the most dangerous
doctrines, and kept themselves free from the foulest corruptions

I D^ from Pofierj, Pk. 3. BL 1. § U Workt, z. p. 847.
3 Lect p. 334.

1 44 PATHtniCAL TUDITIon

in these men did the auccestiori ^f the true church,

taking it comparstively and in Ihe second sense, especially con*
aiat, and the viaibility of it continue in the time of univertat
dtfeclion. In which men the true church continue* visible
always and perpetually without interruption"^

And 80 our learned Dr. Chaloner ; " There may be a churcb
which, in respect of her chief prelates and a predonnioant factioD
thereof, may be/alae and antichristian, yet may contain some
members of the true church within her pale, who tbongh they
refuse not to cammuoicate with her, nay more, are infected with
some smaller errors of the time, yet swallow not down all un*
truths without difference, but keep still the foundation of faith
intire and uoshaken. Thus it was with the church of the Jews
at the coming of our Saviour . . . and thus doubtless it was
with some, which beiog outwardly of the Church of Rome, we
may justly notwithstanding challenge to ourselves."'

Further, our opponents' own witness. Bishop Morton, tells us
that " the catholic church," in tbe Creed, is this successioD of
true believers, the faithful people of God. " Some of our adver-
saries," he says, referring more particularly to Bellarmine,
" to take away the distinction of visible and invisible church,
have so conceited of the catholic church, the article of chria-
tian belief, as to think that wicked men and the limbs of Satan
may be true members of this mystical body of Christ, even for
their outward profession sake. We contrariwise teach, that
,3 titles of spouse of Christ and catholic church do
pertain unto the faithful and elect of God; which
ito S. Gregory his judgment, professing that * withiu
tbe church are all the elect, without it are the
lecause the holy church against which the gates of
prevail, consisteth of the elect unto eternal life.'
;8, c. 6. In Psalm, v. P%nit.)' And to this agrees
.* Thus also speaks Iren^us. Commenting on Pa.
uys, — " He speaks of tbe Father and Son, and of
ve received adoption ; and these are the church.
For this is the congregation of God, which God, that u, the Son
himself collected through himself.'" I need hardly remind the
reader that such also is the language of our own church, which

I Due. concerning Ihe ehareh, pp. 10, 1 1.

* Credo lancUni eoclM. eathol. 1638. pp. 331—3.

f C4ihotic AppMl, lib. I, c e. % 3, p. 03. And • tittle foithir on, p. S9, he
Ulla 01 Ihit Bade applied the title ■> catholic church," ia tbe Mme mj, " to the
■ocietjr of the alect onlj."

* 8n hia ■■ Credo ecclenim, &c." Comp. pp. l& ud 70, ed. IS38.

1 De Patre at Filio et de hia qni adoptiaoein percepettul, dieil : hi auieoi aunt
EecMa. Hac anim eat ajnK(oga Dei, qnam Dena, bee oft, FiMsi ipM par leinB-
lipauni MlkfiL Ad*, hnr. lib. 8, «. S.

110 nivj5i inwomMun- MS

tells U9 thnt "the mistical body" of ChrUt ia "the hleaattt
company of all /ait/^fvl people."^ ■ ,

Aud of ttiU body, and tlju body only, loay it be nid that it
cannot err in fuadameDtnU. To lay that thu ch«rch is alwftys
orthodox in fundamentals ia a mere truism, because it is gupposed
to be composed only of true believers. And as it respects the
church at large, it can only be said to be inderectihlc and iner-
rable in fundamentals, as it contains witbin it tboee individu-
als who form the body of true believers, as Archbishop Laud
admits.'

If such, then, is the cnse, and that the (rue mystical body of
Chrbt, consisting of the succession of individual saints scattered
over the whole church, can alone be a certain and in&llible
guide, and that the faith of such individuals cannot even im cer-
tainly gathered from the public, confessions of the churches t»
whicb they belong, then the notion of obtainiog such a catholic
consent as can make the church a sure guide to us fails to the
ground. Such individuals moreover may always have been from
the times of our earliest records, in the comparisoii, very few in
number ; and whatever may be our private opinion as to the
question of fact, yet seeing that such may at any time have
been the state; of tbe church, our opinion that the case has not
been so must depend upon our supposing that the maioteDancei
of tbe true faith has not been eo limited, which takes for grant-
ed that we know from an independent source what the trua
faith is.

But Mr. Newman identifying (like the Romanists) tbe cburcfa,
the catholic church, with those representative bodies or indi^i
viduals that have spoken in her name, points us to
as our infallible and authoritative guide to the oi
having authority to declare and enforce ttte trutl
8); and by an extraordinary mistake as to tbe n
article in the Creed, lelU us that by the Creed we
fitith in the holy catholic church in tbe sense of h
believe what that church delivers, (Pref. p. 7,} wt
nor any one else can tell us what that chuich, h
as the nominal catholic church, or as the compan;
ful, does deliver. And so Dr. Pusey adownishes m that " to the
decisions of the universal church we owe faith.'"

Nay, Mr. Newman would fain make us believe that this ii the
doctrine of our church, telling na (as we have noticed in a for-
mer page,) that our 20th Article shows that the EDglish church

I Coramnnion SerrtM.

t Agdwt Fiibti, i 31. Namb. S. Nota. p. SO, vd. 1086.

1 Lritn lo tlH Bahap of Oifotd, p. fiS,

VOL. I. ■

14^ PATlMPfCAL TBAHrnO*

iKiids '' the tnrfllUMIHy of the chordi in matters of saving faith."
(See pp. 226, 7.) Let one of bis own favourite witnesses con-
vince him of his mistake. In controversies of faith, savs Leslie,
(speaking in the way of dialogue with a dissenter,) ^ She [i. e.
the Church of England] has authority as ' a witness and keeper
of holy writ/ as the article words it. Diss. What authority
is that ? C. E. [the representative of the Church of England re-
pUeSi] T7ie same that is ackiwwledged in your Westminster
es^fession qfjaith^c. 31^* ministerially to determine contro-
versies of faith/ as you there word it. But in regulating the
worship of God, and in discipline for the better government of
the church, there to determine authoritatively.^^

And to Dr. Pnsey's statement that *^ to the decisions of the
universal church we owe faith," I reply in the words of the able
treatise by Placette, translated and published by our Arch-
bishop Tenison, ** That there is nothing whereon the faith of all
E'vate Christians can less rely ; and that for these reasons : 1.
::ause it doth not appear what is that universal church whose
Atith is to be the rule of ours. 2. Because it is not known what
is the faith of that church. 3. Because it is not manifest whether
the faith of any church assignable be true ;"' on each of which
points the reader will find some valuable observations in the
treatise referred to.

But Mr. Newman says that ^ Scripture itself conveys to the
church the charter of her office, to be the keeper and interpre-
ter of Scripture."" And he quotes three passages to prove it, of
which the only one that even seems to support his statement is
the following, ** The church of the living God, the pillar and
ground of the truth /'^ and he adds, '* How Protestant sectaries
understand these passages, I know not; how, for instance, the
first cited [which is the one given above] is understood at all by
those who deny a visible church."

Now first, let us notice the disingenuousness of this. No one
denies the visibility of the church, taking it even as referring to
that church of the faithful, which consists of certain individuals
scattered over the worid. And to this church our learned Dr.
Chafoner cmisiders this passage to refer, namely " the church
essential, which is^Ae congregation of all faithful believers.***

For are these individuals hid from the worid so as not to be a

> Leslie, Of PiiTafe Judgment and Aotbority in matteri of Faith. 8ee alao
hrdbitUtcfp TeniaeD'a Diacbarae eoncerning a guide in matten of Faith, p. 18.

* Incorable aceptioiam of the Chorch of Rome, c S4. See the whole of cc.
SO— 27. It waa firvt publiahed in 1688, 4to, and waa inaeited by Bishop Gibson
in the third Tolame of his '* PresenratiTe."

«Leet.p.328. 4 1 Tim.iii. 15.

* Crede ecdea. aanet etthol. ed. 1688. p. 70.

148 FATSnmCAL TSABinON

iniih.'* What can be more natural and easy than this sense?
And that there is no novelty in it appears from hence, that
Gregory Nyssen (De ^it Mos. p. 225,) expressly delivers this to
be the meaning; and many others of the Fathers apply the
same phrases to the great men of the church. St. Basil (Ep. 62.)
useth the very same expressions concerning Musonius. S. Chrysos-
torn (Horn. 148, tom. 5) calls the Apostles, < the immovable pil-
lars of the true faith** Theodoret (De Frov. Orat. 10) saith con-
cerning S. Peter and S. John,'* That they were the lowers of
godliness and the pillars of truth.' Gregory Nazianzen (Ep. 38)
calls S^ Basil, * The ground of faith and the rule of tl*uth ;' and
elsewhere (Orat. 19, Ep. 29.) <The pillar and ground of the
church,' which titles he gives to another bishop at that time.
And 80 it appears in the Greek Catena mentioned by Heinsius (in
loc.) S. Basil read these words^ or understood them so, when he
saith, ' The apostles were the pillars of the New Jerusalem, as
it is said, The pillar and ground of the church.^ I forbear
more, since these are sufficient to show that they understood this
place as relating to Timothy and not to the church."' Thus
ftpeaks Bishop Stillingfleet, in a small work which I would earnest-
ly commend to the perusal of our opponents^ particularly the
chapter from which 1 have quoted the above, where he under-
takes to discuss the three following points. ^ First, whether Christ
and his Apostles did establish such a standing judicature in the
church, to which all Christians were bound to submit in matters
of faith. ' Secondly, whether the primitive church did own such
aiudicature, and did accordingly govern their faith. Thirdly,
fvhether it be an unreasonable thing to suppose the contrary^
viz. that Christ should leave men to judge for themselves in
matters which concern their salvation according to the
Scriptures."*

But it may be said, We need not surely ascertain the faith of
all Christians. It will be sufficient to know what everybody
always everywhere among the pastors of the church believed.
This, it must be admitted, contracts the extent of the rule with-
in limits very much narrower than the words signify, so that if
this is all that is meant, it is difficult to see why it should not be
80 stated. And although, for my part, I should be quite willing
to admit the conclusiveness of a proof so obtained, I cannot pass
it over without reminding the reader that there have been pe-
riods in the history of God's church which should make us very
jealous of such admissions for any definite period. Who formed

{WrT0c, TTvhuc iLXt i^,,<fjmuA *nc ctXirdiMt;. I Tim. iii. 15.

t ViixNcation of (he Auwer to tooie hte papers, pp. 3%, 8.
• Ibid, p. M.

m MVQOB UmOSKABlE. ' 149

Uie Charch of God in the time of Abab, vAian Elijah only w«8
left of God's Bunisten? Who forioed the Church of God iu the
lime of our liord, when rulers^ priesto, and people^ with the ex-
ceptioo of a few humble and despised individuals^ cried out. Away
with hioii crucify turn. Never let it be forgotten that it was by
the catAoUc consent of his day that our blessed Lord was cru-
cified. For the notion that such a handfuJ of humble individu-
als as constituted bis followers could be of any account in the
matter, would have been scouted by the followers of '* catholic
consent** as an utter absurdity. Here were all the venerable in-
terpreters of the Scriptures and depositaries of the tradition of
the church ranged on one side, in declaring that tradition, and
the true meaaii^ of Scripture as interpreted by it, were alto-
gether against the claims of J^sus Christ; on the other a few ob-
scure am ^nleamed individuals, who pretended to interpret
Scripture for themselves. Could the followers of *^ catholic coo-
sent'* doubt for a moment on which side the truth was to be found?

These cases very clearly show us how much we may be mis-
taken if we make the majority^ or even the pastors of the church,
the representatives of the true church of Christy the sure witness-
es of the orthodox faith.

But granting all that is here asked, — and it may, no doubt, be
presumed that among the collective body of the faithful formii^
the true church, there are not wanting faithful paalors of Chrisfs
flockf'-^what do we gain by it? How do we know what eveiy*-
body always everywhere among the pastors of the primitive
church believed? How should we be aUe to ascertain this
even for the generation now livii^ 7 How much less, then, can
we ascertain it for generations that lived ages since ; of whom we
know notbii^ but from the writines of a few individuals who
lived at the period, and who tbemselves were unable to trace it.

Take the case of the Church of Englimd alone at the present
day, with her express and particular confession of fakh branched
out into points on which the public records of the early church
are altogether silent In the belief of that ooofession, all her
members profess to agree. But do they all hold in reality the
same doctrine on all the points of that confession ? Take the
doctrine of justification, for instance. Will the article give jou
the precise doctrine hekl by all the members of the church ? No ;
one interprets it in one way, others in another; and he who reads
it to know what is the view of our church upon the subject, may,
if bis inclination so dispose him, strain it to a third sense* And
each will tell you the article is plainly on his side ; for it is at im-

C'ble to bind error by words, as by chains. It has been often
id with both; and both have been broken tbrouah.and burst
asunder by it, and even turned to the promotion of its own pur-

potft. How, tbeo» I ask) even with this confeMioD of faith, in
our handfl^ stiaU we be able to tell what everybody eveijv^'here
in the Church of England holds respecting the doctrine of justifi-
cation? Oearly as the article speaks, it does not show what pre-
cise views are entertained on the subject, by all who subscribe it.
1 can no more say, therefore, what are the precise views of all
oar clergy, because they have svbscribed this article, than I can
tav what their views are, because they hold Scripture to be the
Word of God, and profess to believe all that it delivers. Even
where there is so definite a confession of faith, therefore, there
b some uncertainty as to the views of those who profess to hold
it X<Iay, let us hear what Mr. Newman himself says on this sub-
ject '* In the Englirfi Church we shall hardly find ten or twenty
Deighbourine clergymen who agree together, and that not in the
noo**essentia1s of religion, but as to what are its elementary and
necessary doctrines." (pp. 394, 5,)

Now, then, let us go back to primitive times, and let our oppo-
nents show us of which of the primitive churches we have such
evidence of the doctrine held by it, as we have in the case of the
Church of England. No; we have not any such public confes-
sions even of particular churches to guide us, much less of the
Catholic Church.

There it nothing, indeed, that could claim to be considered
the voice of the Catholic Church, until we come to the Council
of Nice. How is it possible, therefore, that we can undertake to
say what all the pastors of the various churches, or even of all
the Apostolkally-founded churches, believed? To take the few
individuals whose writings happen to remain to us as the repre*
sentatives of this whole body, is as absurd as it would be a thou-
sand years hence to take the writings of some half dozen indi-
viduals of the last three centuries that may happen to have sur^
vived to that period, as the representatives of the whole church
since the Refonnation to this age; and who, if they happen to be
Romanists, would represent the whole Catholic Church as agree-
ing with them^and their only opponents to be a few contemptible

sectaries.

Nay, those individuals themselves could not tell what was the
faith of " the church," when " the church" had not publicly de-
fined it And hence the Romanists themselves make this a pol<^
for the errors of some of the Fathers on various points, that " the
church" had not then determined it; allowing that individuals
might easily err, where there had been no public decision of the
church; while, nevertheless, the desire and purpose of such indi-
viduals must have been to retain the faith of the church, whicW,
therefore, they must have supposed themselves to do; and would,
therefore* in their writings, have maintained that they did.

Ko tnvm tnnaaumM 151

Hence, itill further, suppose we were even to grant that the
consent of the public confessions of faith of all the primitive
churches for the first few centuries, might be taken as indica-
tive of such a catholic consent as ought to be considered a suffix'
cient proof of the oral teaching of the Apostles, where can we
find those confessions ? The utmost of the kind that we can find
for the first three centuries, is in the remains left to us of three
authors of the second and third centuries, who, in their contro*
Yersie^ with some who were opposed to them, give us (as we shall
see presently) a Creed shorter than what is commonly called the
Apostles' Creed, and consisting of articles which, in the present
day, are not called in question; for which they claim the consent
of the churches founded by the Apostles.

Now these Creeds are, no doubt, entitled to great respect, fiut
when we recollect that these churches had no fixed and publicly
agreed-upon formula or confession of faith to be judged by, and
that even in the case of churches that have, the representation
given of their doctrine, varies with the private views of him who
gives it, we cannot surely accept even these as infallible witness-
es. These writers, to use the words of Doctor Barrow, " allege
the general consent of churches planted by the Apostles, and pro-
pagated by continual successions of bishops from those whom the
Apostles did ordain, in doctrines and practices opposite to those
devices, as a good argument; and so, indeed, it then was, next
to a demonstration against them."^ Then the truth of the state-
ment could be tested ; and doubtless their report of such agree-
ment, is a strong argument in our day ; but one, the strength
of which is greatly diminished to what it was then ; and that
on several accounts. We cannot verify it. We have to trust
to the report of two or three partial writers, who themselves
must have judged greatly from report. And when we find, as
we shall hereafter, how freely the name of the church was
afterwards used for doctrines that had no pretence to claim
such an authority^ we can hardly consider these testimonies
conclusive. We have not even the writings of those who were
opposed to them, to consult in the matter; and who, we know,
laid claim to apostolical tradition in their favour. Even in the
few points mentioned in those Creeds, therefore, we believe that
they were held generally in the primitive church, because we
find them so clearly expressed in Scripture, not because we have
any certain testimony of catholic consent in their favour. And
lastly, those Creeds, if admitted, are open to almost all the errors
which agitate the church, having been originally directed against

» Works, vol vi. p. 198.

in rATumoAi. TuniTiMi

those outrageouc abturditiet of titt ValeotiBiaM and HarciouUei,
which, in the preseot day nre equally despised by all parlies.

Moreovo-, were we to suppose that what is called a General
Council might be taken as ao undoubted reweietitative of the
whole church in its day, yet there was not a single Council of the
kind for the first three centuries and more. Nay, if we speak of
a Council truly general) faithfully represeotiog the whole church,
it may well be doubted whether there ever was yet such a Coun-
cil. Bishop Siillingfleet, apeakii^ on this subject, and showii^
the far better title which the Antient CounciU had to be called
General than the modern ones of Rome so called, adds, — " 1 do
not say, There was ever such a General Council as did fully re-
present the universal church, which could not be done without
provincial Cnuncils summoned before in all parts of Christendom,
and the delegation from them of such persona as were to deliver
their sense in the mutter of faith to be debated in the General
CouQcil, and I have reason to question whether this were ever
done."'

And suppose such a Council assembled, and having (which is
all that would be practicable at any time} a few deputies from
every church in existence, could we be sure that those deputies
spoke anything more than the sense of the majority of the postors
of the church they represented? Take an instance. What do
our opponents think of the representation made by the English
deputies at the Synod of Dort of the doctrine of the Cbureh of
England 1 Let them honestly say, wbclher they believe that the
doetrine of the Church of England was truly represented there*
If they do, what becomes of their subscription j if they do not,
they at once confess that auch assemblies atlbrd no proof of the
doctrine of the churches there represented. Nay, it undeniably
follows from this case, that it is only the majority that is repre*
sented, because it is notorious that there were those, as for in*
stance Bishop Montague, in the Church of England, who took a
very ditTerent view of the doctrine (tf our church to what was

lie subject, therefore. Archbishop Tenison, when
a guide in matters of faith, ipeaking of the preten*
e been made by the Romanists to an infallible one,
wordsapply equally to Ihearguments of ouroppo-
is guide could not be the church diffuaive of the first
le suffrages of every Chrietian were never gathered.
'ituive their aenae, they must rise from the dead
». This guide cannot be the faith, as such, of all

1 VindiutioD of tbe Anfwer to Mme lite paper*, p. (3, itid m« PisMU* on
Um laenf^U Scapticiin of tb* CtHireh uf Rum*, e. It.

' KO nmKB IftWCmMAHT. 15 3

the governors o/alt the primitive chitrches. The sense of it
was flever collected. There were antientty general Creeds, but
ittch as especially related to the heresies then on foot ; and who
can afBrro upon grounds of certainty, that each bishop in the
world consented to each Article, or to each so expressed 7 This
guide is not a Council perfectly free and universal, "Pot a
guide which cannot be had is none. If such a Council could as-
semble, it would not err in the necessaries of faith But

there never woe yet an universal Council properly so called .
... In the Councils called generalj if we speak comparatively,
there were not nmny southern or western bishops present at thenn.
It was thus at that first oecumenical Council, the Council of Nice;
though in one sacred place, as Eusebius hath noted, there were
assembled Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians and Arabians, Palaes-
tinians, Egyptians, Thebs&ans, Libyans, Mesopotamians, a Per-
sian, a Scythian bishop, and many others from other countries.
But there was but one bishop for Africa, one for Spain, one for
Craul, two priests as deputies of the infirm and aged bishop of
Rome ; whilst, for instance sake, there were seventeen bishops

for the small province of Isauria This guide is not the

present church declaring to particular Christians the sense
of the church of former ages. How can this declaration be
made, seeing churches differ, and each church calls itself the true
one, and pretendeth to the primitive pattern."^

SECTION ni. — THE INADEaUACY OF THE BECOBDS THAT BEMAIN TO US
OF THE FBIMITIVE CHUBCH TO BE TAKEI7 AS ANYTHII«6 LIKE A SUF-
FICIEUT AITD indubitable BEFBESEKTATION OF THE FAITH OF THE
WHOLE CHUBCH.

We now come to the consideration of the number and value
of the writings themselves from which we have to collect the
*' catholic consent" of the primitive church. And, I think, it
will be evident to every impartial reader, that if we include in
Our review the writings of the first three centuries, we are giving
our opponents as long a period as they can with any shadow of
justice require. For the argument is, that we must go to the
primitive church to learn the doctrines of the faith, because, as
corruptions came in by degrees, the nearer we get to the times
of Christ and his Apostles, Uie more likely we are to obtain the

1 DiacoDTfe concerning a guide in matien of faith, pp. 14—18, or Bishop
Gibeon'f Preaerrative. Tit. iv. c. I. p. 8, &c. and see the whole of Placette'a
** Incarable Bcepticiam of the Cbtirch of Rome ;" and respecting General Goun*
•ile, M« i>6*a 8b<rlO€k'a <« yiodidUoti of eome Proteatant Principlea," Ac in
Oibaon'a PteacnratiTe, toI. UL p. 4a5. .

IM rATBUTKUL TBASmOK

tnitb UDibixed with error. 1 know, iniked, that we are ao iiii
removed from the Apostolk age, that iiten who lived wine three
or four ceoturiea afltir the ApMlleSi are viewed by many aa al-
mott their contemporariei. The Apoitlea and the rathera of tba
firit three or four ccDturiesare to us in thisreipect like the stars.
They are all ao far off from lu that they appear alino«t e<jui-
dittanL The difference of their distances ii so small in the com-
pariaon, that it ii almost lost light of. But if we allow ourselves
to judge thus hastily, we may easily be deceived. It cannot be
pretended that what is not found in the writers of the first Ibree
centuries can be proved to be the oral teaching of the Apostlea
by the testimony of subsequent writers, though subsequent wri-
ters may act as a check upon those of this period, and may also
be included for a negative testimony, that is at negativing u doc-
trine by their silence J for if a doctrine is unknown to the Fathers
of the first five centuries, there is still stroi^r reason to suppose
it to be false, than if we could oolv say that it was unknown to
tbe Fathers of the first three. Tbe longer the period you can
include for the negative aif ument, the stronger it becomes. And
hence, we willingly give the Romanists the first five or six centu-
ries from which to prove the doctrines in dispute between them
and u& But for a positive testimony in proof of any doctrine
the case is precisely the contrtuy. Here we want respectable
proof of catholic consent at a period very near the apostolical
times.

Let us observe, then, on this head,

First, and more especially, titepaucitjf of the remains of tbe
primitive church for the first three centuries.

That there were many writers at all in the church compared

with its extent, during the ages of persecution, is not probable.

But when we come to view the records that actunlly remain to

us, we shall find that we can hardly reckon upon having one

witness for a million. For who are our witnesses for this periodT

We have first, nine brief epistles to various churches by Clement,

1 Ignatius. We have the works of Justin Martyr,

[nent of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origeit

is; a few small Treatises by Athenagoras, Theo-

ioch, Hippolytus, Gregory oi Neocsesarea, Miou-

d Arnobius. These with a few fragments of some

I preserved by subsequent writers, form the sum
itnesses for more than tbe first three hundred years;

II these works are written in reply, either to Iha
nents of Christianity, or to heresies which in the
vould be equally despised by all parties, and conse-
quently bavea very indirect reference to any of the disputes by
which the church is now agitated. These, then, are to be taken,

FO DIVIMI IKFOWUirr. lit

according to omr oppopenti, m the certHin reftretaolktms of the

Vrbole cburch, as cqaivaleDt to everybodj/ alvayt everywhere
during thia period, and hence» ■■ presentiBc vt, where they
agree, with a certain record of the oral teachiag of the Apo**

ties.

Now, whether these writers do give a coowDlient testimoii;
in behalf of anj doctrine is a pwnt which we shall diacius here-
after. But at present I would onlvsubmit to the reader whether
such a claim in hehalf of the few individuala above namei), namelT,
that their concurrent stntemeDti should be taken as a certain
record of the consent of the whole cburch, and so of the oral
teaching of the Apostles, is admissible.

Consider the small number of those whom we are thus making
the uncommisaioned plenary representatives of the Boiversai
church for three hundred years. And that too w'
that (hey form but a very small proportion even of
those ages. For the author of the " Synopsis of S
Iributed to Athanasius, having given a list of the ca
(^ the New Testament, says, — " Such are the book
Testament, those at least that are cancmical, and i
first fruits or anchors and props of our faith, as bein
composed by the ApostlM of Christ themselves, a
associated with him, and were taught by him; bat afterwards,
in accordance with their teaching, and in harmoDy with them,
iHj/Hada qf other books tnthmtt number were composed by the
Fathers who in their time were great and excelling in wisdom
and taught by God."' And again, further on, he speaks of these
writers Hs "very many and inBoite in number."*

Is it not, then, absurd to make the testimony of the few iodi-
viduab above mentioned equivalent to the " catholic ccHisent" of
the whole primitive church for the first three centuries?

For the whole of this period, be it observed, we have do re-
carded public confessions either of churches or councils to guide
us. The utmost of this kind to be found among the records of
this periodarc thebrief confesaionB (already alluded to, and which
will be considered more particularly hereafler) recorded by Ire-
weus, TertuUian and Ongen, and for which they claim the con-
sent of the churches founded by the Apostles.

It must be added also, that were we to include a longer period
in our review, so as to take in some of the Councils best entitled

• «)wHU t*i imT/ta

Sux. t i. toUr Athu. Op, Tol. ii. p. 131. •<]. B«iiad.
* IL^mKur iMi atfutm. lb.

T

IgQ ^ATBlfnoyUL TBADmOff

to the name of GentraU our opponent* woald gain notKng by it.
For such Councils have proved themselves to be far froni infallible
witnesses of the faith of the true church by contradicting each
other. If we come to consider what Councils we have that can
make any pretences to being considered general, we shall find
that the two which can make the best claim, namely, those of
Nice and Ariminum with Seleucia, are entirely opposed to each
other in a vital point, and that the latter, which Bishop Stil ling-
fleet calls, •* the most General Council we read of in Church his-
tory,"' decided against the orthodox faith.

So that Augustin, when disputing with an Arian, virtually ad-
mits that, as far as the testimony of Councils is concerned, his op-
ponent's argument from the Council of Ariminum would be as
good as his own from the Council of Nice ; and therefore, that
they must both betake themselves to the Scriptures.*

It is not a little strange, then, how our opponent? can use the
language they do as to the authority of the witness given by
General Councils respecting the faith, and even chaise their doc-
trine upon our own church, because of its admission of the deter-
minations of the first four General Councils as agreeable to the
orthodox faith, when it is even made a ground of objection to us
by well informed RomanisU, that we admit those Councils, not
on the ground of any intrinsic authority in the nature of their
witness, but because we judge their witness to be correct, when
it might have been otherwise." We may say to the Tractatort, .
as it was long ago said by a learned writer among us to the Ro*
manists,— *Mf General Councils cannot err, how come these gen-
tlemen to be persuaded that the Council of Jlriminum, consist-
ing of about six hundred bishops, which also was backed by a
Synod of Eastern bishops at Seleucia, did not discharge the church
of all obligation to quit [? hold] the belief and profeasion of the
Son's being consubstantial with the Father? The second Coun-
cil of Ephesus had a general summons, and in respect of the nam*
ber of bishops, it was as general as Councils sometimes were
which are esteemed so, and yet we all say they erred with Dios-
corns. And many more instances there are of this nature.' *

Secondly, the view we have of antiquity, in the remains of it
that are left to us, is a par/ia/ view.

1 Vind. of Antw. to some late papew, pp. 53. 4.

2 Adv. Maxlmin. lib. 3. c U. lorn. 8. col. 704.

» R H.'t RatioBtl Account of doctrine of Roman Cfttholiet eoDoernmg Goidt
in ControT. DIac 8. c. 4. § 40.^). 174. «d. ed. 1673.

4 Hotchinaon and Claggetfa Anth. of Cdancila. Ac. py. 7. 8 ; or in Bitbop
GibWa PreaervatWe. tit. 4. toI. I. p. 143. The t»me doctrine la maintained
^ Dean Field. See hia Treatiae " Of the Charch.»» p. 861. 3d. ed. And by
Biabop Jer. Taybr, in hia Liberty of Propheaying, % «.

no DivnrB nfPosMA!fT. 157

Wlien Mtimating the title of the writings that remain to the
character in which they are put forward by our opponents, we
must pursue the inquiry, not as men who have already decided
in favour of particular doctrines, not with a bias towards particu-
lar Fathers, but with a simple regard to the intrinsic value of
their testimony, apart from any consideration of the doctrine
which it supports; for otherwise our decision will be founded
merely upon our own prejudices, and thus, though it may be very
satisfactory to ourselves, will bring no conviction to others, and
forms no sufficient foundation for our own faith. The writings
of the Tracta tors appear tome to be very open to censure in this
respect. There is throughout them a tacit assumption that such
men as Ignatius and Irenaeus, &c. were so excellent and ortho-
dox, that we may well abide by their decisions in important
points, as representing to us the mith of the true church. And
this is the secret which explains all their statements. But this
is, in fact, an assumption of the very thing which we profess to
be seeking, namely, the orthodox faith. Ilow, I beg to ask, did
we obtain this bias in favour of these men, but from finding that
they agreed upon the whole in our view of the orthodox faith as
delivered by the Scriptures?

We must observe, therefore, that in the works which remain to
us, we see antiquity through the medium of those records and
writings only which the ruling party in the church ha^ allowed
to be preserved.

Whatever, then, may be our private view as to the effect pro-
duced, whether it has been more or less favourable to what
we hold to be the orthodox faith, it is undeniable that this fact
greatly affects the value of those writings, as giving an impar-
tial and certain representation of the faith of the whole church.
It is certain that thousands of books published in the primi-
tive church have perished; and among these the works of all
those who were condemned by any conciliar decisions. Now this
is, indeed, what might be expected. The influence of the ruling
party would naturally prevail,— especially at a time when, books
were not multiplied with the facility with which they now are,
— for the gradual extinction of the writings of those who had
been publicly condemned. When Christianity came to be pro-
tected and supported by the state, we find the ruling party in
the church, whichever it might be, enforcing strict prohibi-
tions, and a rigid suppression, of the books on the other side^
even though they might have been written long before by those
who had died in the communion of the catholic church. Thus
we find the fifth General G>uncil (as it is called) anathematizing
the books of three bishops, Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorua of
Mopsuesta, all of wbom had died long before in tke comniu*

VOL* I* o

15S PATBienCAL TBADinOH

nionof the catholic church: and on the cnse of one of whom,
namely Ibas, the fourth General Council had exiirufsly ynf»cd
a. difierent decision. And in this Council {as "Ihe seventh
General Council and all the Greek historians testify"') the con-
demnation of Origen, who had been dead abont three centuries,
was pronounced; and this condemnation is probably the reason
why we have so few of bis works remaining in the original
Greek.

And as the church became more corrupt, the effect of these
anathemasand prohibilioirt,(whatever it may have been previous-
ly,) became proportion ably injurious (o the cause of truth, as we
see remarkably exemplified in the canon of the second Nicene
Council that decided in favour of image worship, which dccreedt
as Du Pin himself represents it, "that all the works against
images shall be put in the palace of the Patriarch of Conslanli-
nople, among the heretical books, and threatens to depose or ex-
communicate those that shall conceal them,' which was in accord-
ance with the letter of Pope Adrian to the Council, in which
(as Du Fiu says) he " establisheth the worship of images, and
affirms that the church of Home received it by tradition from
St. Peter ; and proves, by a false relation, that in St. Sylvester's
time, St Peter's and St. Paul's pictures were in the church;"*
and accordingly his Legates required that iill the books against
images abould either be anathematized or burnt. Dailie, who
mentions this case, justly remarks,* that it is probably the cITect
of this anathema (hat we have not the original Greek of the
Epistle of EpiphaniuB to John of Jerusalem anywhere remaining,
but only the Latin translation of it by Jerome, which has been
preserved to us among St. Jerome's own letters. And hence the
want of the original nag been taken advantage of by Dureu?,
Sanders, and hat it is a work of Epiphanius.*

Such is the p i in these matters.

So, also, P lat the Greek Treatise of Ter-

tullian on bi y suppressed on account of hii

having there m that the baptism of heretics

was null and

Upon this h of Rome has acted ever since,

particularly i the Reformation ; at the very

I Du Pin, who, howeier, canteoJi tbal il wi* " in iha Council brid in S40
undsr Mennu, irhleh luuiB • part of the flfih Coaneil." 6e« Du Fin, mulM
fifth Oeneral Comneil.

1 Cui- S. Sgs Du Pin under thit CaandL

s Du Fid, ib.

( On (he UM of Ibe Filb«r«, Part i. c 4.

^ S«a C«ci Cenmin in Praf.

•8a>FuiiaLADD0LinT«ruiU.p. SM-«a.Cd.Afri|^ 1617.

VO DIVINS IJI90BMA1VT* 159

dawn of which this principle of suppressing whatever might be
contrary to her viewsi appears to have been, as far as was in her
power, rigidlj enforced; for, at the tenth session of the fifth Coun-
cil of Lateran under Leo X, in 1515, it was ordained, in the
Third CoostitutioDi that all books printed at Rome should be ex-
amined by the Pope's Vicar, and Master of the Holy Palace, and
in other places by the Bishop and Inqubitor, under a penalty
against the printer of forfeiting the books issued without such ex-
amination, which were to be burnt, and paying a.heavy fine ; a
decree which applied to the works of the antients, as well as the
moderns; as appears from the fact, th^t when all the bishops pre-
sent but one had assented to it, the remaining one remarked that
he assented to it as respected new works, but not as to old. And
as we are indebted almost wholly to the Romanists for all the
earlier editions of the Fathers, the mischief that may have been
done to their remains in this way is incalculable; not merely by
the suppression of whole treatises, but more especially by their
corruptions of the works which they have given, which we shall
notice presently.

In the Council of Trent this decree of the Lateran Council was
specially recognized and enforced. And from these decrees sprung
the Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes with which the world
has since been favoured ; which have not spared even the works
of the antients. Dr. James tells us that in the first two editions of
the " Bibliotheca Patruni,"* " there are many treatises which
make rather against, than for them ; as well knew the Roman
Index, which hath commanded them to be left clean out ; and
according hereto, they are omitted in the last edition of Paris f^^
namely, the third of 1609, 10.^ It was originally designed that
the Admonitions of Aga pet us should have been among the num-
ber; but this work seems to have been afterwards spared, on the
condition of a marginal note being affixed to an obnoxious pas-
sage, which was this; ** The king hath no superior in the earth.''*
" Write in the margin," says the Roman Index, ** Understand
among secular and temporal dignities ; for the ecclesiastical dig-
nity is superior to the kinely."^ A gloss, which is not only con-
trary to the words, but directly contradicted by several other

1 By M. de la Bigne, Parig, 1675—9, 9 Toli ; and Parif , 1689, 9 vol.

2 JamM*8 Corruption, dtc. Part 3. n. 19. p. 214. These two firgt editioni,
therefore, were prohibited. See James. Index Geo. Libr. Prohib. Oxoo* 1637,
13010, ander ** Bibliotheca'"

3 The ** Buctarium" and *' index" to thia third edition, were also ordered to be
expurgated in Tarioua parte. See Jamee. Index Ltbr. Prohib. under *^ Biblio-
theca."

< Non enim babet [i. e. Rex] in terria ee qoicquam excelsiut.
B Scribe ad marginem, Inteilige inter sncalares et temporalet dignitalas, nam
•cclcfliattiea xiignitaa aubUmior est regia. Ind* Rom. p. 30(K

1

1 60 PATRWnCAL TBADrriOK

passages of the work ; but which will be fbuDd duly inserted in
the Bibliotheca.^

We may here observe, also, that in the Roman Index of 1559,
we find, among the prohibited books, Bertram on the body and
blood of Christ, the Imperfect work on Matthew, attributed to
Chrysostom, (of which their own Sixlus Senensis says that it had
been " approved for ages by the common consent of the church,"
and which had been quoted by Gratian, Aquinas, the Rhemists,
and other Romanists, as a genuine work of Chrysostom,*) and
" a Treatise on the true and pure church;" "most falsely," says
the Inquisitor, ** ascribed to Athanasius."' As it respects the last
of these, the prohibition appears to have been but too successful,
as I can find no notice of it anywhere else ; but, in the case of the
two former, it has fortunately proved but brutum fulmen. And
doubtless these Prohibitory Indexes have been less injurious, than
the tacit suppression of the works before publication ; for, when
once abroad, the universal destruction of the copies was no easy
task. Of this, the Romanists have been well aware ; and conse-
quently have done their best to strangle obnoxious works in the
birth. A curious case of thb kind was brought to light by Arch-
bishop Wake, which is throughout so illustrative of the Romish
system in this matter, that I will here present it to the reader.

In 1548, Peter Martyr, in his dispute with Gardiner, Bishop of
Winchester, concerning the Eucharist, produced a passage from
an " Epistle of Chrysostom to Caesarius," evidently overturning the
Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, professing that he had copied
the epistle from a Florentine MS., and placed it in the library of
Archbishop Cranmer. Bishop Gardiner, not being able to deny
this, endeavoured to get over the difficulty as well as he could ;
and ascribed the epistle to another John of G)nstantinople, who
lived about the beginning of the sixth century. This answer
was adopted by others: though, as the Archbishop observes,
^' still the argument recurred upon them; forasmuch as thisother
John was in the beginning of the sixth age ; and transubstantia-
tion, by consequence, was not the doctrine of the church then ;"
and accordingly, the copy in Cranmer's Library being, of course,
lost in the dispersion of his books. Cardinal Perron, in his Treatise
of the Eucharist, " flatly accuses Peter Martyr of forgery ; and
uses abundance of arguments to persuade the world that there
never was any such epistle as bad been pretended." And so
says Bellarmine.^ Thus the matter stood till 1680, when Bigo*

1 See James. Ib> pp. 318 dcs.
' James'f Corraption, ^c I^t S. n. 2. p. 166.

* Tractatat de vera et pura ecdesta, D. Athanaaio falaissime adacriptns.
4 Nihil ejusmodi amqaan acriptiaae (ybrysoetomQin, neque enim in toto Cbrj-
■oatomi opere alius est Uber Tel Epistola ad Cssariara. De sftcr. eochtr. lib. S. c. aiS.

KO DIVINE IirF0R]fA2«T. 161

tius, having broaght a copy of the epbtle from Florencey printed
it with his edition ofPalladius, add strengthened it, says Dr. Wake,
" with such attestations, as show it to be beyond all doubt authen«
tic." Bui, before the publication of the book, this part of it
was interdicted and suppressed by the doctors of the Sot*
bonne, and " the printed leaves cut out of the bookf^ and " of
this, the edition of Palladius of that year remains a standing
monument, both in the preface and in the book."^ Howeveri
" the very leaves cut out by those doctors of Mr. Bigot's preface
and the epistle rased out of the book," fell into the hands of Dr.
Wake, by whom they were published in the appendix to his
^ Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Cfhurch of Eng*
land against M. de Meaux," (pp. 127, &/:.) The offensive pas-
sage is this. I use Dr. Wake's translation. " Before the bread
is consecrated, we call it bread; but when the grace of God, by
the priest, has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is
esteemed worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the
nature of bread still remains in it. "^

It only remained for the Romanists that came after, to main-
tuin (hat the whole epistle is spurious ; which is accordingly done
without any hesitation, by the Benedictines, in their elaborate
edition of Chrysostom. It is with them " altogether spurious,'^
(omnino spuria,) written by nobody knows who; though they
admit that it is quoted asChrysostom's* by John Damascen, Anas^
tasius the Presbyter, Nicephorus, and others.^

Indeed, as Archbishop Wake says, " So many antient authors
have cited it as St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Caesarius, such frag*
ments of it remain in the most antient writers as authentic ; that
he who after all these shall call this piece in question, may with
the same reasonableness doubt of all the rest of his works ; which,
perhaps upon less grounds, are on all sides allowed as true and un-
doubted."^ So much for the impartiality of the Benedictines,
upon whom far too much reliance has been placed.

It is impossible, then, to consider the remains we have of the
antient ecclesiastical authors, as beyond doubt exhibiting to us all
the variations of doctrine that were to be found in the primitive

1 For the truth of which I ean alto tettify, haviog a copy of the hook ; which
ii not, indeed, of uncommon occurrence.

2 Anteqoam aanctificetur panif , panem nominamui, divina antem ilium eancti*
ficante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatuf est quidem appellatione panif, dignua
autem habitus est Dominiei corporis appellatione, etiamai natura panis in, ipso
permansit. Wake's app. pp. 156, 7.

9 See Chryfost* Op. ed. Bened. Tom. 8. Prof. § 8. et Mouit. in Ep. ad C0sar-
pp. 737, 8.

* P. 146. This mode of getting rid of treatises in which passages occur opposed
to their Ttews, has long been in common use among the Romanists. See the
Preface to Coci Oensura.

O*

162 FATRISnCAL TRADITION

church ; and therefore we could not regard evcD the consent of
those writings, as representing the Catholic consent of the whole
church. It is no aid to the cause of orthodoxy, to put forth such
a claim. It looks like a confession of weakness ; a desire to en-
trap men into a belief of doctrines for whose divine origin there is
(as they will suppose) no sufficient foundation.

Thirdly, the view we have of antiquity, in the remains of it
that are left to us, labours under much uncertainty, from the
way in which tlie works of the Fathers have been mutilated and
corrupted, and works forged in their name.

None have suffered so much in this respect as the Fathers.
^' He who sits down to read the Fathers, in order to be guided by

them to the true faith, will find himself encumbered at the out*
set with difficulties of the most formidable kind. For if he is
to take them as the ground upon which his faith is to rest, it is
Very necessary that the works upon which he depends, should
be really theirs; and that they should be in the state in which
their authors left them. But as to a vast number of these works
he will find not only that their authors are disputed, bi^t that
they are set down by many as the forgeries of mischievous or
heretical persons ; and that many others have been grievously
corrupted, (and how far the corruption extends, it is impossible
to tell,) by the heretics in antieut, and by Romanists in modern
times.

Thus above one hundred and eighty treatises, professing to be
written by authors of the first six centuries, are repudiated by
the more learned of the Romanists themselves as, most of them»
rank forgeries ; and the others not written by those whose names
they bear; though, be it observed, they have been almost all
quoted over and over again by celebrated controversial writers
of the Romish communion, in support of their errors against
Protestants.*

And any one who will consult the works that have been writ-
ten by Cave, Du Pin, and others, on the ecclesiastical authors of
antiquity, and particularly that of Robert Cooke on the spurious
and doubtful works attributed to the Fathers,' will find three or
four times as many more, noted asr either shameless forgeries, or
at least of very doubtful authority, and very uncertain author-
ship.

So that before we commence our task, we must strike out of
our list of patristical relics a whole mass of writings, which the
criticism of an age removed a thousand years and more frc^m the
period when these writings profess to have been published, may

1 See James^f Gomiption of Fathera, Ate Part 1.

s ReB. Coci Censnra qaornndam tcriptoram, Ac. Loud. 1614. 4to.

NO DIVIICB nfFORMAnT. 163

command us to xeject. This, it must be admitted, is not a very
satisfactory commencement; because we are naturally disposed
to ask whether we can be quite sure as to the genuineness of
those that remain; and shall, in fact, find ourselves not a little
puzzled to know the grounds upon which some have been elimi-
nated, and otiiers allowed to stand, not to say that our critics are
sometimes grievously divided among themselves ; some contend-
ing stoutly for the genuineness of a piece, others as stiiSy main-
taining the contrary.

But what is worse, we have also to guard against the corrup-
tions introduced into the genuine works of the Fathers. This is an
evil which it is still more difficult to remedy, especially as it is one
which has been growing since the very earliest times. We have
to deal with the corruptions both of antient and modern times.
Of these interpolations we find many complaints in the Fathers
themselves. Thus Augustine, speaking of a charge of corruption
brought against the works of Cyprian, says, — *' For the integrity
and a knowledge of the writings of any one bishop, however
illustrious, could not be so preserved, as the canonical Scripture
is preserved by the variety of languages in which it is found, and
by the order and succession of its rehearsal in the church ; against
which nevertheless there have not been wanting those who have
forged many things under the names of the Apostles. To no
purpose indeed, because it was so in esteem, so constantly read,
so well known* But what such boldness could do in the case of
writings not supported by caiu)nical authority, is proved by the
impiety with which it has not even refrained from exerting itself
against those that are supported by a knowledge so universal."^
This testimony is the more observable, because it shows that in
Augustine's view, the Holy Scriptures ttand upon very difierent
ground in this respect to the writings of the Fathers, and that
we may justly fear corruptions in the latter to which the former
are from the circumstances of the case in an infinitely smaller
degree liable.

" So great," says Isidorus Hispalensis, " is the cunning of the
heretics, that they mix falsehood with truth, and evil things with
good, and generally insert thie poison of their error in things that
are salutary, that they may more easily insinuate their wicked

1 Neqae enim me poinit integritM atqoe notitia litterarum anint qaamlibet U-
iMlria epinopi CMtodiri, qaemtdmodam Scriptura canonica tol liogaanim litteris
et ordine et HiccaasioDe celabrationis eoclesiaatics enstoditar, contra qaam tameii
Don dcfoerant qui tub nominibua apottoloram multa confingerent FruaU« qoi-
dem, qoia ilia tic cuminendata, tic celebrata, sic notn eat ; Tenioi qoid poasit
•drertum HUeraa non canobica aoctoritate fundataa etiam binedemonatraTit impie
eonatas aadacie, 4)0od et adrertum eaa qae tanta nolitie mole ilrmat» aant sese
«rigere non pnatenniait. August. Bp. ad Vincent. Rogat ep. 93. toI. ii. eoi 346,
7, ed. Bened*

164 rxratmcAL txadittoh

error under the appearance of tbe truth. The heretics generatlj
:trinee under the name of the catholic doctors, that
bout question, they may be believed. Sometimes
tfullj insert their blaaphemies in the books of our
irrupt the true doctrine by adulteration, namely*
)g what is impioos or taking away what is agreea*
). We must cautiously meditate upon, and test
scrimination, what we re^d, that according to the
iDition we may both hold fast that which is good
t which is contrary to tbe truth ; and so take in-
the good as to remain uninjured by the evil."'
said by Anastasius Sinaita, — " The catholics of
i me, that after the times of the blessed Eulogius
:. Patriarch of Alexandria] there was a certain
-, Augustan prefect] there, a follower of Severus,
itne had fourteen amanuenses of like mind with
down at his command and falsify the hooks con-
trines of the Fathers, and especially those of the
holy Cyril." •

Of the partisans of Dioscorus it is said in the letter of the
monks of Palestine, preserved by Evagrius, that they had fre-
quently corrupted the works of the Fathers, and had attached
the names of Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus and Julius to
m!9ny of the works of Apollinarius.'

It woald be easy to add other passages of a similar nature.
But we will proceed to point out some particular instances.

Of the constitutions of Clement of Rome, it is complained by
the sixth Council, that certain corruptions of the true failh had
been introduced into them by heretical persons, which had ob-

I Tanta Cft lusrelieanim rillidllu ol TbIh >em nulaqaa booU pertniKciDl,.
uluUribiiiqua rebui plcrunqua crroria aui firua inlaraarant, qou faeiljos poaaiol
|iravi(alem pertcru ilogmalia lub apecie penuadere teriuti*. Plcrumque aub
nomine catholicarum ductorum hcretjci au* dicla eonicribunt. ut indabilanter
Iscli creilanlur. Nouauoquim etiam blaipherniaa aufa laleoli dola in librla Doa-
Irarum inaernDl, docmuamque *eram adallerando corrompuDl; inilicet iti adji-
cianda que impia ■not vel aufeteodo qun pia aunl. Uaaia mcditanda cauloque
aeniu probaada aunt que legunlur, Qt jaila Apoatoliea nonita et Igaeamua qua
recta aunl el terutcmui qua contraria TBritatiaiialunl,aicquaiii bonta inatruamDr,
ut a malia illmi parmanaanua, Lib. S.Semani. e, 19. Ran, ISOS.Iom. fl.

t OfitymtTe Ttmn i/jn w tic acjouur vuAma; n AAifa,J^iKi, m ftvt^ T<vr j-^tstn tu
fiUMt^tu Ejikiryta/ Tev nan, y^y" '"f Ad^wftaajk *tu^a Tmtftvnr, mm4 m utancc
Xfuvc tx' if »•*">*»•"« niit^iM nmi, iwr' mnam in«i m^ti^ifimtiK, wu »«*-
piMrru TM iiffMt Tsr tif/niwrn tm flUHfiB, siu fiMtjr^a. tat tin *>«Ii KtjuUuti.
Anaalaa. ainait Vie dux. c 10. p. 198. ad. 1SD6,
) Kw y*t uu u>MT wwnim riAMtjuc mtmaan, rtUwt A AnUMW" t-fyt ASiu«-
m aw Xirytti^ ta dav^MTK/)* au Iwua /m tan arij^afw wmhiurn. EiafT.

"" ~ .St. Saaaliol

<r. pi. 1 p. lOfi. 0

NO DIVIlfB IllFORMAlft. 166

scured the beautiful character of the diviue decrees.^ The same
is said of the '* Recc^nitions" attributed to him, by Ruffiuus, '
PhotiuSy * and Epiphanius.^

That the epistles of Ignatius were corrupted by heretics, we
have proof in the variations of the copies still extant of them ;
under ^hose name also are to be found several epistles now gene-
rally given up as spurious.

In the same case, probably, are the '' Shepherd" of Hermas,
and the Epistle of Barnabas, and hence by some they are wholly
rejected as spurious, while by others, as Archbishop Wake, &c.,
they are defended as the true productions of those apostolical
men ; and certainly a book under the former title, and contain-
ing passages to be found in that we now have, is quoted with the
greatest respect by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
others. As it now stands, however, it is disfigured by passages
hardly reconcileable with the orthodox faith.

Nay, of one of the most valuable remains of antiquity we pos-
sess, the work of Irenaeus against heresies, we are warned by our
present learned Bishop of Lincoln, ^^ we should always bear in
mind, that far the greater portibn of the work of Irenaeus is ex-
tant only in a barbarous Latin translation, which lies under
heavy suspicions of interpolation." ^

The boldness of these corrupters of the writings of the Fathers
may be conceived from the fact that they did not spare an
author's works, eyen in his own life time, witness the complaint
of Dionysius of Cbrinth ; " I wrote some epistles," he says, '' at
the request of the brethren, but the ministers of the devil filled
them with tares; taking away some things and adding others;
for whom wo is reserved."*

That the " Hypotyposess" of Clement of Alexandria were
thus corrupted can hardly be doubted by any one who reads the
account given of them by Photius, who himself supposes it to
have been the caseJ

On this ground, as is well-known, Ruffinus endeavours to de-
fend the writings of Origen, viz. that they had been grievously
corrupted by heretics, an apol(^ however which Jerome would

' Qaibat jam olim ab iis qui a Mt aliena teDtiaDt adulterina qasdam et a
pietate aliena iniroducta sunt, qec diTinoram nobii decratorom elegantem ac
dacoram speciem obscurarunt Can. 3.

s Ap. Hieron, in Contr. Ruff. lib. iL § 17. torn, iu coL 507.

s Bibl. ed. Hoeaehel p. 155 et aeq.

* AdT. bar. in her. 80. toI. i. p- 139.

* On writingf of Teitnllian, p. 90. im/0.

'ToXM.^ifflUMv yr^tfAUMt, a, fAtt ^Mtfovrne$ a A ir^a^tBwnf its t* o(MU unM. Evtlii.
Hist EccL iT. 28.
7 Phot Biblioth, cod. 109. cd. HottcheL p. 164.

166 rATXIITICAL TSADITION^

Dot receive, and therefore we will only refer the render to the

conteet between Jerome and Ruffinus on this point, where he

will also meet with many observations illuatrntive of this subject.*

And it a Bomewhat renriarkable that so little was Jerome ac-

quninled with the fact, now contended for, of catholic consent

among all the writers of the early church on all important |)otnts,

that (rejecting the supposition bo convenient for such an hypothe-

ey had spoken incorrectly, their writings had

! heretics) he does not scruple to say, — " It

ither they absolutely erred, or wrote with

their writings were by degrees corrupted

L. Or, at any rate, beTore the rise of that

us in Alexandria, they spoke some things in-

oiisly."'

er, seems quite certain, and that is, that the

the Greek Fathers, by Ruffinus, are not to

learly convicted by Jerome, of having both

ook of Euscbius' six books of the defence of

ame of Pamphilus the Martyr, in order to

ct for it, and of having altered the sense of

its to make them speak the language of the

ly clearly convicted, for Ruflinus, in his reply,

ieny it. He is charged with doing the »ime

the works of Origen, in order to make them

Ttlidox faith, and as far the greater part of

'rigen's works remains to us only in his trans-

: little of Origen (hat we can at all depend

ions 6f Ruflintis are given up by all parties

a( credit.* Such adulterations of the works

!fore, were not all on Ihe side of the heretics.

Another instance is recorded by Cyril of Alexandria, in the

case of the epistle of AthanaEius to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth.

Writing to John of Antioch, Cyril remarks, — " Having learpt

that some have published in an adulterated form Ihe epistle of

our illustrious Father Athanasius to the blessed Epictetus, so that

many may be injured thereby, we have thought it useful and

necessary to Ihe brethren to send your holiness a transcript from

wme antient and incorrupt copies that are preserved by us."*

I 8m Hicron.libr, contra Ruffin.ind Rnffin. Apol. ipaJ HieTon. Open.

* Fieri eoim polett, «il vel (implieiler em*erinl, *el alio wniD tcripeerint, *el a
librarii* impeiitii aorum paniilim (cripti coitDpu lint. Vel eerie ■nteqitini in
Alsiindri* qnui damaDium meiidUaam Ariu« auoeretar, ioncieeiiter qumlim et
minni ciute IimiudU aanl. Hieron. Contr, Raff. lib. ii. ^ IT, tom. ii. coL SOS, 9.

■ SeeHieran. Conlr. Ruffia. lib. i. ^ 8— 10, toil tib. ill. S IS.

* Sec Haalii Origen. lib. iii. e,l,% 8, et puiim, mil Cits, mb nam. Bt^JInvt,

rtfttu rtr^ iam AiuMJTuv, utijktm tx«w*"i "»^ mtrnt *«t u/WMum, »t irrw-

HO Divrrte i:*FOBMAr»T. 167

And again, to Acacitis he write*, — ' Paul, Bis
me Terj earnestly whether I afnetit to whnt
celebrated and most blessed Father Athar
Bishop of Corinth. I replied, ' If jou have t
corrupt state (for many things in it have bi
enemiei of the truth,] I assent to it alloge
point.' He replied that he had the epistle,
to be assured by my copies, and ascertain wh
were corrupted or not. And having taken thi
compared them with those he had brought,
were adulterated, and advised me to make
copies, and send them to the church at Antii
done."* He repeats this statement in his firsi
to Succensus, in the former attributing the c<
lowers orNestorius.*

In the second of these letters to Succensu
him that if any carried about a letter purp(
by that most pious presbytei" of the Church o
intimating that the most holy Biehop Xystus
deposition ofNestorius and assisted him, he n
or if a letter was brought to him, purporlii
himself, (namely Cyril,} and intimating his re{
done at Epheeus. he was only to laugh at i
shows that such letters were being then circu

That the works of Cyril were corrupted
have several testimonies. Dioscorus, hia suci
Alexandria, ts accused of having adulterate
of Byzantium.* So Nlcephorus Callistus tells
forced himself into the See of Alexandria i
Emperor Leo, " is said to have corrupted many of the writings
of the divine Cyril, not published ahroat), and to have inserted
in them false doctrines."* The same is intimated, as we have

Spilt. 1(1 JobiDD. AnUocb. Op. torn. i. i'art. S. InWr Epiii. p. 109.

fil «> T«pni Tt tai ^tarrat. ' O tt awe twtu mm-ib, txf fif if <luT« t»> mWTUJrn,

Au«i, ivfinu lairra, j^mrota; mmi trftntt^ He tm rat' '^ 8i8>jm ira. riarai, Tiiit-
•twitTn ApTit^*"'***"'' g'(uj>«}4M, Epiit, *d Aucinm Melitiuena. apiic.
tan, T. part, 3. Inler Ep. p. 130.

■ tb. pp. UO ind 161. 3 lb. p. 161. 4 De Sectu AcL S. Ad.

' Alyrnu far miM tarm At« tw AOMi/m tm nyyfaftfia/Tm t» Siaa KiviMw «•«>
Hnxarw nAhrrOT, /uatfumtiiu, h4b vmit mm^r* tty/tina. Hid. E«d. Uk
ST. C 18. .

IAS PATBimCAl. TBADinOH

already observed, by Anastasiiif Sinaita ;^ who also gives an in«
stance of such corruption as occurring in the first Epistle to Sut*
census, where the words being iv* rt f irrti« ufmt pMffUf^ they had
been in most copies altered, and he tells us,vthat in only one copy
shown him by the Librarian at Alexandria, did he find the cor-
rect reading, the rest being all altered ; some reading h^ ^rti§
ifmHmt pMfUf^ others, )»• fMc^vo-fi* iyv«iirl«f f«f»i*. Consequently, it
may be doubted whether our reading in the present day, which
is, dv rm$ pvrtif umt ^«^ff r«i Mitirmi,^ is the genuine reading,
and if so, we have here an instance how easily we may be de-
ceived in such a matter.

The same Anastasius mentions a corruption in the works of
Ambrose, where, for, '< let us observe the difference of the divini-
ty and the flesh," had been substituted, 'Met us observe the dif-
ference of the reading."' The passage as we now have it in the
works of Ambrose, presents us with the true reading.^ '

In the sixth G)uncil, Macarius and his colleagues were con-
victed not only of corrupting the testimonies they brought from
the Fathers,^ but also of circulating corrupt copies of the Acts of
the fifth Council."

And these forgeries appear to have been committed sometimes
upon a large scale. Witness the book of Basil on the Holy Spirit,
where it is justly suspected that the latter part, and that more
than half of the whole, haSvbeen added by another. This was
first noticed by Erasmus, and in his judgment our two learned
prelates Jeremy Taylor and Stillingfleet fully coincide, the for-
mer stating that the last fifteen chapters '' were plainly added
by another hand,"' and the latter, that besides the evidence from
the connexion and stvie of the parts, so we must suppose it to be
if we think that St ftasil *< would not utter palpable and evident
contradictions in his writings," his testimony here respecting tra-
ditions being totally contradictory to several passages in his ac-
knowledged works.' And this judgment is further confirmed by
the learned Robert Cooke.' And as Bishop Stillingfleet justly
observes, " Erasmus was not the first who suspected corruption in
St. Basil's writings. For Marcus Ephesius in the Florentine

iSeep. 164 above.

s See Cyril. Op. ed. Aabert torn. t. Part S, Inter Eplet p. 137. E.

» Am iw, pvxn^^uo «rw /ut^e^y t»c diorrr&c mu tm ctf^MCy fvKa(m/jttt rm /m? fl#o
«r»c ajfttyrmnrnt. Anast. Binait. Vic dux, c. 10. p. 1^00.

4 Serremaa diatiticUoDem diviniutia et oarnia, Ambroe. De fide, lib. ii. c. 9. n.
77. tom. ii. eol. 485.

• Condi. 8ext Act 8 and 9.

• lb. Act 14.

7 Lib. of proph. § 8. /

8 Rational Account, dec ed. 1666, pp. 349, 4.

t CenanraQooniDdam ScripCoran, Lood. 1614. 4to. pp. ISO tt eeq*

no DTVllIB niFOKMAlIT* IW

CovnoH, (Act M*) chargecl some LatiniKing Greeks with corrupt*
, iog his books agaiost EuDomias, protesting that in Constantinople
there were but foar copies to above one thousand which had the
passages in them which were produced by the Latins/'*

Other instances might easily be adduced.* And against the
corruptions of antient times we have scarcely any defence, except
that which is foanded upon criticism and conjecture, grounds mr
too insecure to build faith upon.

Nor must we omit to observe that these antient corrupters of
the Fathers have had their imitators in later times, whose frauds,
though certainly more open to detection by ns than those of
antient times, have not filways been easy to be discovered.

I will not here enter upon the various charges mutually asade
against each other by the Grre^ks and Latins of corrupting the
Fathers to speak their sense,* except to notice that not even the
Creed has escaped ; witness the dispute as to the phrase ^^JUtoque**
of such importance in the dbctrine of the procession of the Holy
Ghost which the Greeks charged the Latins with adding, and the
Latins charged the Greeks with abstracting, so that, be it as it
may, on one side or ^e other a fraud has been committed.

out I will rather notice the performances of the RontianistB of
this kind, which may seem more especially to afiect us.

Their corruption of St Cyprian's treatise ^ On the unity of the
church," in the edition by Manutius published at Rome in 1564,
under the sanction of the Pope, and afterwards folk>wed by Pa-
melius, is so well known, that I need hardly dwell long upon it
here. It is fully stated by James in his work on this subject,* and
is thus briefly noticed by Bishop Taylor ; ^ The third chapter of
St Cyprian's book ' On the Unity of the Church,' in the edition
of Pamelius, suffered great alteration. These words, primatus
Petro datur^ * the primacy is given to St Peter,' wholly inserted ;
and these, super cathedram Petri fundata est eoclesiay 'the
church is founded upon the chair of St Peter :' and whereas it was
before, stiper unum cedificat ecelesiap^ Christus, ^Christ
builds his church upon one,' th&t not being enough, they have
made it, snper ilium unum, * upon Chat one.' Now these addi-
tions are against the faith of all old copies before Manutius and
Pamelius, and against Gratian, even after himself had been chas-
tised by the Roman correctors, the commissaries of Gregory XIIL
as is to be seen where these words are alleged, Decret. c. 24. q. 1.
can. Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum. So that we may say of

«

1 Rational Accoant, See. p. 848.

* Setaral are mentioned by Daille, On the trne nae of the Fathen, Part I. c 4.

* 8ce particalarly the diacaadons in the Council of Florence.

4 Treatiie of the Cormption of Scripture, Ooancila. and Fathera, by the Pr«*
lalee, dec of the Choioh of Rome, Part 3. pp. 1 18— ISO. ed. IS88.

VOL. I. P

170 WMtmmicjki* tUAtmn^m

Cyprian's worka, ai P^melius hifmelfcaicl coooeitung hk ^witing?
and the writings of others of the Fathers; saiih he^ ' Whence, we
gather that the writiaiips of Cyprian and others of the Father<»
are in various ways corrupted by the transcribers.' (Cypriaoi
scripta ut et aiiorum Veterum a librariis varie fuisse iaterpolata.
Aonot in Cypr. super Concil. Carthag. n. 1.}"^

In the same place, the bishop after James" notices a similar
corruption introduced by Gratian, where quoting that passage of
Ambrose, '^ They do not hold the inhentance of Peter who have
not theyoiM of Peter," (non habent Petri haereditatem qui nou
babefit Petri fidem)^ he quotes it as, " They do not hold the in*
heritance of Peter who hold not the se^i of Peter" {(or Jidem
substituting sedem).

So again, to that passage of Augustine, '' In reckoning the ca-
nonical Scriptures, let a man follow the authority of the greatest
number of catholic churches, among which truly are those which
deserved both to have the seats of the Apostles, and to receive
their Epistles,"^ the latter part is quoted by Gratian in the
Canon Law as, '^ among wnioh Scriptures those Epistles are
which the Apostolic See hath, and others have deserved to re-
ceive from her;"* and to this is prefixed the title, '* The decretal
Epistles are reckoned among, the Canonical Scriptures,"^ to lead
the reader to suppose that Augustine refers in these words to the
I>ecretal Epistles of the Popes.^

In such corruptions, however, none seem to have outdone Pa-
melius. We have already noticed those which are to be found
in Cyprian's Treatise, *• On the Unity of the Church," in his edi-
tion« Another instaiulie occurs in Cyprian's Tract, '' On the Ad-
vantage of Patience," wherCi for the words, afttr the reception
of the eucharist (post gustatam eucharistiam) we find, after
the carrying about of^the eucharist (post gesiatam eucharist-
iam) to maintain the Romish custom of the circumgestation of
the eucharist' So in his fortieth Epistle of this edition, we have
ptiram the rock, changed into Pe/rt/m, Peter. And though the
Episitle of Firmilian is admitted on account of its having beCD
already published^ so that it was of no use to try to suppress it,
Pamelius very Candidly admits that he wishes it had never -been

} Liberty of prophei. % 8>/n.

'^ Corruption of 8S. &o. Part 2. n. 23. p. 222. ed. 1688.

;s In CAnobicifS autem ScripturisEccleiiarumcatholicarum quampTurium abthori-
ttfMmM^uatar, inter quav sane iHe rank quae apoatolicas eedea habere et Bpiatolw
accipere merueront. De Doct. Christiana, lib. ii. c. 8.

< Inter quae sane illsB sontqaas Apostolica eedes habere etab ea i||ii| ^erueraot
accipere epiaiolaa. Decret Pt. i. dist. 19. |n Canon. 6i

' fi inter canonicas Scripturas Decretales Epistols connamerantar.

< James's Corruption, &c. Part 2. n. 7«p. 185.
*i /ames, ib. p. 239.

publisbed, and that pfobably MaiMiiiiifl iDlentionaUT ofloitted it
in bis edition of Cypriao^^ And certainly Romanists are not
likely to be much gratified with an Epistle written in the third
century, in which it is stated that, '< Anybody may know that
those at Rome do not in all things observe those things that were
delivered from the beginning, and vainly pretend apoMolica) au-
thority."*

Another remarkable instance occurs in TertuUian, where,
until Rigaltius had the honesty to give .the passage as he found it
in the MSS., an important testimony was altogether lost through
the falsification introduced into it. The passage occurs in his
^* Exhortation to Chastity," where, according to the reading
given by Rigaltius from the MSS., we read, *' Where there is
no assembly of the ecclesiastical order, you [speaking to a lay-
man] both ofier [L e« in the eucharist] and baptize, and are alone
a priest to yourself ;"^ which passage has been corf upted into
the following, — " W^ere there is an assembly of the ecclesiastical
order, the priest, who is there alone, both offers and baptizes,"^
which is alti^ether incongruous with the context, and turns the
whole passage into nonsense ; but it was preferable to make
Tertullian speak nonsense, than utter such a testimony as his
real words give us. To the testimony supplied in these words
We shall have occasion to advert hereafter.

In the Roman editions of the Fathers by Manutius, various
instances of the same kind might be pointed out What, indeed,
could be expected from one who professes to have received a
charge from the Pope to print them *' so corrected that there may
be no error remaining, which, by holding out the appearance of
false doctrine, can influence the minds of the simple" P It was
his duty to print them as he found them ; instead of which, he
makes a boast of suppressing all which was reckoned at Rome

1 FortastU con«altiut foret, nanqu&m editam fuine bane e|>i8toIam, ita nt
putem coiMuko illam omisUse Manatium. Argum. ad epiat. 75. These two caaea
are noticed by Paille, lib. i. c. 4.

3 Eos auiem qui Roms sunt non ea in omnibas observare que sint ab origine
tradita et fraatra Apostolorum auctoritatem prstendere, scire quis etiam inde
po4est| quod eirca celebrandos dies pasch® et circa molta alia divina rei aacra-
menta videat esse apud illos aliquas diversitatea, nee observari illic omnia sq«a-
liter qaae Hierosolymis observantur.

3 Ubi Eccloeiastici OrJinis non est consessus et oflfera et tinguia et sacerdos ea
(ibi solua. De exhort, cast. c. 7. p. 523. ed. 1664. -

* Ubi Eecleaiastici Ordinia est consessus, et ofEert et tingait aaeeidoa qui eat
ibi solus. See the editions of Pamelius. I quote from that of Col. Agripp. 1617.
To whom the corruption may be due it ia impossible pteciaely to aayf but Pame-
lius, in his note, admits that be struck out the *^ non"

6 Sic emendati, ne qua supersit labes qus imperitorum animos objecta falsoe
doctrine specie possit inficere. Manutii Prsf. ad Pium 4m. in lib. Poll t)e
Concil.

in VATBimOAL TSADmWEI

tohe doctrine. It was » coofennitj, I rappoie^ wkb these direc-
tioDS, that he left out, asPamelios tells ns, the letter of Finnilian
to Cjprian, and introduced the corruptions we have already
noticed in his edition of Cyprian's treatise ** On the Unity of the
Church.^ Well may the Romanists, with such editors, boast of
haying aU the Fathers on their ride.

Another of his ** emendations," occurring in the works of Gre-
gory, is thus noted by Dr. James. The genuine parage is this,
*' All things that were foretold are come to pass. The king of
pride k near ; and (which is a wickedness to name) a whole ho$t
€f priests is provided to attend his coming. (Sacerdotum ei
prsBparatur exercitus.) For they also march with as proud a
countenance as he, which were appointed to be examples of meek-
ness and humility to others."^ ' ** The Roman edition with sun-
dry others,'' says Dr. James, ''read most absurdly, contrary to
the faith of the MSS. and the circunistance of the place, scuier^
datum est prssparattis exitusJ** " The king of pride is near.
And (which is a wickedness to name) tohen he comes the priests
shall be executed and put to death?'* " Whereas, " says Dr.
James, ** the word militant^ do march^ in the next words,'makes
the matter clear on our side against them. For if they were put
to death, how should they walk up and down ? unless they did
as St. Denis is said to have done^ that carried his head in his
hand ; and yet methinks a more modest gait than Gregory speaks
of should have become them. Add hereunto that the epistle is
written to tax the pride of a bishop (John of Constantinople, which
took upon him the title of universal bishop) and not of a king, of
the clergy and not of the laity. Lastly, to make the matter sure,
all the MSS. that I could yet procure or get into my hands, (that
is seven MSS.) do read exercitus and*not exitus.^^ And he adds
that, for ^citing these words truly," Bishop Jewell had been
** traduced and slandered among the Papists," as one who had
misquoted Gregory to serve his purpose ;' a very apt specimen of
Popish dealings, first to publish corrupted editions of the Fathers
themselves, and then charge others with misquoting them, if they
swerve from that corrupted text. One thing more we may ob-
serve from the genuine passage of Gregory ; namely, that he held
the assumption of the title of universal bishop to be a mark of
antichrist Would that hi3 successors had been of his mind.

Another instance, apparently, of such corruptions, and. one
which remains in the Popish editions to this day, occurs in the

1 Omnia 9«ift prsdicta tant, ifiant. Rex raperbiB^prope est; et, qaod die!
nefM est, Mcerdotum ei prepftrator exercitus; quia cerrici militant elationia qui
positi fuerant ot ^ucatum prasberent hnmilitatia. Greg. Magn. Epist. lib. i. Ini,
13. £ p. 88. aa quoted by Jamee. Ed. Ben. lib. t. Ind. 18. £p. 18.
s Jamee'a Comiptioo, &c Part 8. n. 26. pp. S80 9i aeq.

iro BtVtKl lltMllliEirt.* It*

trorks of Aujrastihe, in a pa93age much qtiotedby the Ronriabbts
in support df tbeir notions of tradition. Augustine, speaking of
baptism, says, According to the reading of three MSS. at Oxford,*
*— " The custom of our motb^ the church in baptizing infants is
not to be despised, nor by any means to be thought superfluous,
nor "at ail to be beKeved to be anything but an apostolic tradi-
tiod/'' And this agrees with what he says elsewhere on this
subject, where, speaking of infant baptism as having been
always practised in the church, he says, ''That which the uni*
versal church holds, and was not instituted by councils, but has
always been retained, is most rightly believed to have been de-
livered by no other than apostolical authority.**" How far this
rule is admissible, is a question into which I do not here enter.
BQt the meaning of Augustine in both these passages is clear.
The former parage, however, has been corrupted by the Roman-
ists, by the addition of a letter to one word, into this ; •• The
custom of our mother the church in baptizing infants is not to
^be despised, nor by any means to be thought superfluous, nor
at all to be believed^ were it not an apostolical tradition,***
'And so it remains to this day in the Benedictine edition^
without even the slightest intimation -of the MSS. having
any other reading. And hence the passage is quoted by Romish
Controversialists^ as showing that in Augustine's opinion, infant
baptism ought not to be believed at all but for tradition, and
therefore couM not be proved from Scripture,* which is clearly
contrary to Augustine^s own renmrks elsewhere ; and so this pas-
sage was to stand as a proof that for some points of the highest
importance we must go to tradition, and cannot get any sufficient
proof from Scripture.*
Again; the following passage of OGcomenius has been alto-

1 Jalkkes's Oornipdoa, Ac. Pt 2. n. 4. pp. 177 et wq* '

sCootaetado matris aooletis io baptizandMparruUsjMqatqQamfpernendtMt,
neqae ullo modo tuperflaa deputanda, nee ooinino credenda nisi apottolica eise
tradiUo. De Qened. ad lit. lib. 10. c 23.

s Qaod aniveroa tent t ecciasia, nee conotliiff inatttntom, aed Mmper rattotom
est* non niai auctoriuta apoaloUca traditom ractiiaiaie creditor. De bapt. contr.
Donat. lib. 4. c 23.

4 Conaaetado matria eceleale, d^c. (aa abore) • . . nee omaino credenda niai
apostolica e99et traditio.

« Aa by the Rhemiata in their notot on 2 Theaa. ii. lb, and the aathor of The
grounds of the old religion and the new, (see James, p, 180,) abd by the answerer
of Archbishop Laud. (See Stillingfleet's rational account, dbc. p. 108.)

0 Bee James, ih. Tliifl corruption was first sospected by Bishop Bilson, partly
by the course of the sentence, ^nd partly by a comparison with other places, and
upon referring to the MSS. Dr. James ascertained that the suspicion was well
founded. How is it that these taluable MSS. of the Fathers have been so little
used, and that we have been lefl by the possessors of them,' though With a " Cla-
rendon Press" at hand, to the tender merciea of Romish editors fbr tdmast all the
editions of the Pathera we possess 1

P*

g^er onitted in the priiited editioof : '< For tbote ^lAo ikvoor
the Law introduced even the worship of angels, because throng
them the Law wa« given; and this custom remained in Pbrjgia,
80 that the Council of Laodicea made a decree, prohibiting the
making addresses and prayiog to angels;^ whence also there
were many temples among them erected to the archangel
Michael."' This passage David Hoeschelius, in his notes on the
work of Origen against Celsus, testifies that he himself had seen
in the MSS» of C&umenius.*

Nay, they are not contented with leaving obnoxious passages out
of'their printed copies, but will even blot them out of the MSSw
where they have the opportunity. Thus, when that famous
passage in the ''Imperfect work on Matthew," attributed to
Chrysostom, in which it is said — that there should come a time
when the church being corrupted, men should be utterly unable
to find the true church but by the Scriptures, and should perish
if they took anything else for their guide,7 — ^is urged against
Bellarmine, he very coolly replies that that whole passage had
evidently been inserted by the Arians, and had been removed
from some MSS, that had been latblt corrected.^ And ac-
cordingly in the edition printed at Paris, 1557, Svo. it is altogether
omitt^.'

Fifty examples of this kind are noticed by Dr. James,* to
which he tells us he might have added hundreds more.

Their forgeries and falsifications in the acts and canons of the
early Councils, have been largely investigated by Dr. Comber.^
And these forgeries, we must observe, are not all the produce of
modern times, but commenced as early as the ambition of the
Roman Pontiffs for universal domioion in the church ; insomuch
that even at the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century, the
Pope's Legate cited the sixth canon of Nice as containing the
words, *^ The Church of Rome hath always bad the primacy,"
the falsehood of which was showed by the Constantinopolitan

I Sm Ooadl. Laod. Can. 85. Cod. Can. Bccl. UniT. Can. 189.

0 vo/btof JbOw. EfAUH ^ TovTo Ko/TA ^if^uu TO f9o(, m iuu Ttit fv Att^JufUL rvro/ov ?o^»
ju»xv0'«u <ro wpormf^ M,yy4K9U tuu »>etfw;i^ir6«u. A#* 9u tuu foot TOf) nwuc vw «»;i^«rp«n>-

s See Daille, lib. i, c 4.

4 Totua hie locaa tanqoam ab ArianU inaertaa e qnibaadanL codtcibaa nnper
emendatia aublatas est Bellarm. De Verb. Dei, lib. i?. c. 11.

* Bee Jamea, Pu S. n. 3, pp. 161 et aeq. And aee aomewhat aimilar inalaneea
mentioned, ib. n« 19. f»p. 195. et aeq. and n. 13. pp. 198 et aeq.

< Corruption of Scriptare and Fathers, Sec* Part S. pp. 1 13 et aeq.

7 Roman Forgedesin the Coancila. Part 1. Lond. 1689. 4to. Part 2. Lond.
1695. 4to. Many are alao mentioned by DaiUe, On the trae ttse of the Fatheia.
Pt. 1. c. 4; and in the *' Hiatorical Bxamination of the authority •of General
Coundla.''

9»msn9m wwmw»»^ 176

Code tibM piNDdiioed.' A pregMBt iwtitfic^ thii^ Mreiy, of the
daagert tQ wluch flucb documeBts have beea ezpcaedt in tbeif
paflBage thiougb the Roioaii Chvrch to our bands*

Tbere is not, in fact, aa editioD of the Councila in which there
are not, Biabop Barlow lajs, <^ spurious canons and decretal
epistles of ancieot Popes put in, and genuine canons left out or
corrupted*"^ To all which we must add the weU*known mutual
accusations of the Greeks and Xjatins against each other of direct
forgisries and sweeping suppressions and alterations in the de-
crees and caooos of the various Councils, even from the first
sreat Council at Nice, which leaves us in stiU greater nncertaintj
10 the matter.

Nay, more, they have not hesitated openly to profess to corre<^
the writiugs of the Fathers, where they have spoken erroneously.
Dr. James refers to two Expurgatory Indexes' where certain
sentences or words in the text of Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom,
Anastasius, Eucherius, Procopius, Agapetus, and Didymus Alex-
aadrinus, " against idolatry, satisfactions, Aeter's primacy, and
for the supremacy of temporal kings and ^oces," are ordered
to be erased ; and testifies to havii^ seen a copy of Chrysostom,
ia which ^^ divers sentences" had been blotted out by the Inqui*
sitws.*

And so that the famous work of Bertram on the Eucharist, is
in some Indexes altogether forbidden ;^ and in others expurgated
of the part which opposes Ropiish errors*^

And this practice is openly defended by the Jesuit Gretser, in
his treatise on the subject,^ where he maintains that though ** the
sayings of the Fathers, as they are Fathers, need no purging ;"
yet that, " being considered as sons, their wor^ may be corrected
and censured by the church.'^®

Such are the principles and practices of those through whom
.principally we have received the works of the Fathers.

These example^ very clearly show the extensive and systema-
tic corruption to which the writings of the Fathers have been sub-
jected by the Romanists ; a corruptk>ny of which the detection, in
a few cases,, such as those given above, can afford but a very in-
adequate idea^ considering the opportunities they have enjoyed.

1 See Condi. Chalced. Ato. 16. ; and ComberV Rom. Forg. p. S3.
< Directions for choice of books, 6k, p. 32. A remarkable instance is mentioned
bj Dr. James in his Cormption of 8d. and Fathers. Ft. 2. n, 38. pp. 250 et seq.
8Madrit.l084. 4to. Rom 1607. Svow
4 CormptiQS, to. Fart 4. pp. 41 0, 1 U
^ As in that, pnbUshed at Rome; 1659. 4to.

* As in the Index. Belg. Antw. 1571. 4to:
' Do jore et more prohib,

• James ib. p. 412. Where bs adds some remarks well worth contideratioh, on
the aartj Remaa editions of the Fatbara. ,

ITV PAtftMTOAA MAfMnoft

Now it is quite traettkC it UHHildbe'WroBgt54fiA«, PmA thtm
facto, tbftt we have no remains of antiquity that we ckti itfefpend*
upon. But, at the salne time, they ^ Undoubtediy ^howus tiM
necessity of caution with respect to those writhigs that come to
us under that name. They iiecessarily weaken the argument
derived from those writings in favour of any doctrines, and take
away that certainty that is necessary to make them authoritative
witnesses. Their statements^ though useful as a guide in the in«
terpretation of Scripture, and as a check upon the extravagance
of private interpretation, are not such as can be made binding
Upon the conscience. Would it not be absurd to call our com*
mon-places, gathered from these writings, a '' practically infalli-
ble" testimony of the oral tradition of the Apostles 1

We are not Called upon, then, be* it observed, to determine
whether, in an abstract view^ d society like the church eould
be a safe depositary for the oral teaching of its founders, whether '
the state pf the church might have been such, and the records
testifying of the orai| tradition of the Apostles so abundadt and
well preserved, as ^ensure the siife convey ance of that tradition
to succeeding ages. We must look to /acts ; and facts Bhow that
the state of the church and its records has not heed 'such as to
make them trustworthy witnesses of oral Apostolical tradition.

That the reader may not suppose that I am pressing this argu-
ment beyond what the great divines of our own church would
sanction, I would here call his attention to what our opponents'
own witness, Bishop JenTaylor, has saidon this subject. ** There
are some," he says, *' who think they can determine all questions
in the world by two or three sayings of the Fathers, or by the
consent of so many as they tvili please to call a concurrent
testimony. But this consideration will soon be at an end.'' And
then having produced various objections to such a notion, he
thus proceeds, — " But I will rather choose to show the uncertainh
ty of this topic, by such an argument which was not in the
Fathers' power to help ; such as makes no invasion upon their
great reputation, which I desire should be preserved as sacred as
it ought. For other things, let who please read M. DaiHe *On
the true use of the Fathers ;' but I shall only consider that the
writings of the Fathers have been so corrupted by the intermix-
ture of heretics, so many false books put forth in their names, so
many of their writings lost which would more clearly have ex-
plicated their sense, and at last an open professioQ made and a
trade of making the Fathers speak, not what fhemseives thought,
but what other men pleased, that it is a great instance of God's
providence, and care of his church, that we have so much good
preserved in the writings which we receive from the Fathers ;
and that all truth is not as char gone as is the certainty of

W^ Mf iH IWPPBullT*' ITT

/A^iV great authtrnty and r^miationJ** And bayuig giyen
Vfuioiu ui8taDC€8y 88 of the epistle written to Coostantine by the
ArianSy under the name of Athanasius, and a work written by
the Eutychians against Cyril of AlexaDdriH^ under the name of
Theodoret, and of the chapters added, as he maintains with
Erasmus, to the work of Basil on the Holy Spirit ; and the testi-
mony of Erasi^us. that, in the eighth century, '< books, under the
assumed name of illustrious men, were everywhere to be met
with,*^ he adds, " Indeed the whole world hath been so much
abused^ that every man thinks he hath reason to suspect whatso-
ever is against him ; that is, what he please; which proceeding
only produces this truth, that there neither is nor can be any
certainty, nor very much probability, in such allegations.

" But," he proceeds, *' there is a worse mischief than this,
besides those very many which are not yet discovered, which,
like the pestilence, destroys in the dark, and grows into inconveni-
ence more insensibly and more irremediably ; and that is, corrup-
tion of particular places, by inserting words and altering them to
contrary senses." And having given several examples, the prin-
cipal of which will be found more fully stated among those we
have given above, headds, — "Butthat the Indices Expurgatoriiy
commanded by authority, and practised with public license, pro-
fess to alter and correct the sayings of the Fathers, and to recon-
cile them to the catholic sense, by putting in and leaving out, is
so great an imposture, so unchristian a proceeding, that it hath
made the faith of all books and all authors justly to be suspected.
For considering their infinite diligence and great opportunity, as
having had most of the copies in their own hands, together with
an unsatisfiable desire of prevailing in their right, or in their
wrong, they have made an absolute destruction of this topic;
and when the Fathers speak Latin, or breathe in a Roman dio-
cese, although the providence of God does infinitely overrule
them, and that it is next to a miracle that in the monuments of
antiquity there is no more found that can pretend for their advan-
tage than there is, which indeed is infinitely inconsiderable, yet
our questions and uncertainties are infinitely multiplied, instead
of a probable and reasonable determination. For since the
Latins always complained of the Greeks for privately corrupting
the antient records both of councils and fathers, and now the
]|Liatins m^ke open profession not of corrupting but of correcting
their writings (that is the word^, and at the most it was but a
human authority^ and that of persons not always learned, and
very often deceived, the wholb matter is so unreasoitabls,

THAT IT IS NOT WORTH A VURTHER DISQUISITION."^

1 Lib. of Prophet. % %.

/

I

JECTIOK' IV. — THE WITNESS OF PATRISTrCAt tltADltlOIT, TtVtV IN ¥ttB
WBlriKOS THAT HAV£ ^EEN PRI^SfillVfeD, IS OF A AllBCtmDANT IEIITD;

AIH) THAT EVi?r IW FTITDAJfEIfTAL POIlfrs,' *

< t

t f

We have already shown, that even the ^omiettt of the few
vvriters whose remains we possess of the primitive church, coqM
Dot be taken as anjr just representation of the doctrine of the
^hole church of that period, and therefore certainly as no divibe
informant or certain record of the oral teaching df the Apostles.

But thus much we are perfectly ready to admit, that jf we
take the writings of the first five or six centuries, considerihg the
character of thier authors and their extent, it is not likely that
the orthodox faith, in all fundamental points, shouM hot be con-
tained therein. Consequently, the consent of thctee writings, upon
any point admitted to be a fundamental article, would in all nro-
ba'bility, represent the true faith. I say admitted to be a fun*
damental article, because if it be a question whether it be ?>
fundamental article or not, then it is also a question what is the
value of such consent. And I know of nothing but Scripture that
can determine what the fundamental articles are. Moreover, it
must really be the consent of those writings. It is not sufficient
to say four or five have given their testimony in Its favour, and
the rest are silent. For this destroys the yerf groundwork upon
which the argument is built, namely, that such and so many au-
thors are not likely to have all erred in fundamentals. But four
or five, or more, among them, may have erred.

Nay more, I admit fully that our church has (wisely, in my
bumble view) sanctioned the principle, that nothing is to be ad-
mitted as a fundamental point of faith that has not some support
in the patristical testimony of the first five or six centuries; a
rule which (especially at the time when it was first made) was a
prudent precaution against the novelties of enthusiasm and
ropery; and hence it was that Bishop Taylor said, that the
Church of Englarid " ties her doctors as much as the Cbuncil of
Trent does to expound Scriptures according to the sense of the
antient fathers."* And this quotation reminds me of a very im-
portant erratum in Mr. Keble,* who, quoting this passage from
Bishop Taylor, (inadvertently, no doubt, but still somewhat ex-
traordinarily) substitutes for "^en^e," "con^en/," thereby mak*
ing Bishop Taylor seem to intimate that ** cor»ent" is to be found
in the Fathers, directly opposite to his own express detetmihattoit
to the contrary, both in a previous work," and also in the cofitext

■ . . . ■ ' • r

t

1 Dim. from Popery, Pt. ii. Introdaclion. Works, Vol. z. p. 822. '
s App. to Sermon, p. 149.
^ Liberty of Prophetying, ) 6.

3^ DtVlUfl i.^FORMANTi • 179

of tlife very passage.* Trfae, it would follow from what he eayg,
that the consei^t of the writings of this period in a fundamentai
point is n<>t to be conti*overted by us where it can beformd^ kut
that is vastly diSereot to assertiog ^hat there issucb cdDseot The
}j^tter would make the Fathers a v&y clear guide in sueh points,
while the fact Is, that tfafey are a very obscure one from their
contradictions.

Further; on what groui^d is it that our church has given them
this authority? Clearly because, on inspection and comparison
with Scripttire, they v/ere considered to be, taking thenr» as a
body, in possession of the truth, that is, that the true faitb waa
contained in their waitings. ** The Protestants," says Dr. Waters
land, ** having well studied the Fathers, were now witling to
rest their cause not upon Scripture only, but Fathers too; so far
at least as the three first centuries, •dnd they thought that a
much greater difference was due to the judgment of those
early ages of the church than to that of the ages succeeding^
while the Romanists -were used to value the latter equally with
the former, or even to give them the prefer enee.^^*

When the Protestants referred to the Fathers as judges of the
disputes between them and the Romanists, this was not from their
holding their witness to be authoritative in the matter, but from
their finding that such an appeal might safely be made, and on
the natural supposition that it would be the most influential with
those who professed to guide then^selves by that witness.

We allow, then, that the consent of the Fathers whose remains
we possess of t^e first five or six centuries, would be a most strin-
gent argument in favour of any doctrine on a fundamental point;
and admit readily that the principle sanctioned by our church of
fequtring some patristical testimony in favour of any doctrine put
forward as fundamental, would make such consent, (not from any-
tn/n/t^tc authority, t>ut from the acknowledgment of our church
as to these writings,) a conclusive argument that it was the doc-
trine of OUT church.

We will now proceed, then, to inquire further, whether such
consent is to be found.

Among the writers of the fir^ three centuries are three indi-
viduals, Irenasus, Tertullian, and Origen, who have left us a
brief summary of the Christian faith, for which they claim the
consentient testimony of all the churches founded by the Apos-
tles. These bommaries, then, have clearly the best claim of any-

I lb. p. 324.

^ eeconi] Vimliefttloit of OftrSit'* Ditinity, Pref. p. xvli. Works, vol. in. Sao
also 8tiliingileet't Council: of TrMkt etftaiiietf, p. S4,4ufle(l p^ 1^7 abofOi aofl
oCbertottimonie8.iiii9. U belo^

IM rATSiiTioAL nuDnioir

thing in antiquity to be ooomderti the representatives of the
catholic consent of the primitive cbnrchf and as agreeable to the
teaching of the Apostles, and bejond doubt are entitled to verj
great re«>ect I shallt therefore, b^in with them. The sum*
roaries of Irenaeus and Tertallian have been already given, hot
for the convenience of the reader I will here repeat them, and
subjoin that of Origen.

l*he foHowiog is given by Irensens as 'Uhe faith preached by
the cburch.**

^'The church, though scattered over all the world from one
end of the earth to the other, received from the Apostles and their
disciples the belief in one God the Father Almighty, who made
the heaven and the earth, and the seas, and all things that ar<e
in them ; and in one Jesus Cbristi the Son of God, who was in-
carnate for our salvation ; and in the Holy Spirit, who preached
by the Prophets, the Dispensations, and the Advents, and the
birth by a virgin, and the passion and the resurrection from the
dead, and the bodily ascenrion into heaven, of the beloved Jesua
Christ our Lord, and his advent from heaven in the glory of the
Father, to restore all things, and to raise all flerfi of all man-
kind, that to Christ Jesus our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and
King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father*
every knee should bow of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth, aini that every tongue should con-
fess to him, and that he may execute just judgment upon all ;
that he may send the spirits of wickedness, and transgressing and
apostate angels, and all impious, and wickedy and lawless, and
blasphemous. men ini» everlasting fire; and to'tbe just and holyi
and those that have kept his commandments, and remained
steadfast in his love, some from the beginning, others after, re-
pentance, having given life, may confer on them inunortality,
and put them in possession of eternal glory.*^^

Having occasion again to give a summary of the doctrine of
the church, he delivers it in these words, (which he calls ** the
order or rule of that tradition which the Apostles delivered to
those to whom they committed the churches") ;—

^* Believing in one God the maker of heaven and earth and all
things which are in them, through Christ Jesus the Son of God $
who on account of his extraordinary love for his creature, sub-
mitted to be born of a virgin, uniting man to God in his own per-
son, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again,
and being received in glory, shall come in glory as the Saviour
of those who are saved, and the judge of those who are con-
demned, sending the corrupters of the truth, and the despisers of
bfe Father, and of his -advent, into eternal fire."'

> Imiir. adT. h«r. lib. i. c. 10. Mim. c 3. Grab. Bee pp. 119, ISO, above,
s Iebv. adf. htn* iii e. 3.

PATBUnCAL TRADtTIOX

"Since, therefore, man}/ of Ihoae whoprtifeas to believe ia
Christ, disagree, not onlr in small points, and thoee of no mo-
tnent, but also in important points, and those of the highest
moment; thnt is, either coDcerning God, or concerning the
Lord Jesui Christ, or coijcerning the Holy Spirit; and not only
concerning these, but also concerning others that are creatures;
that ia either concerning Dominions, or concerning holy Powers;
it seems necessary on that account first to lay down a certain
line and clear rule respecting each of these, and then after-
wards to discuss other points. For as, while many among the
Greeks and Barbarians promised the truth, we left off seeking
it among all those who delivered it according to their own false
notions, after that we believed that Christ was the Son of God,
and were persuaded (hat it was to be learnt by us from him; so,
since there are many who think that they understand the doc-
trines of Christ, and some of them may understand them difier-
ently from those who preceded them, while, nevertheless, the
ecclesiastical doctrine (prsedicatio} delivered from the Apostles,
through the order of succession, and to this day remaining in the
churches, may be preserved ; that alone is to be believed as the
truth, which in no respect disagrees with' the ecclesiastical and
apostolical tradition. But it is right that we should know that
the holy Apostles, when delivering the faith of Christ, with re-
spect to some things, whatever they considered to be necessary
they delivered most plainly to all, even to those who seemed
slow in senrching after divine knowledge, leaving the full pur-
port of their declarations to be inquired into by those who
should deserve the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and had obtained,
in an especial degree, through the Holy Spirit himself, the gift of
speech, wisdom, and knowledge: but with respect to other
things, they said that they are so; but how or whence they are
so, they give no account; in order that the more studious of those
who should come after them, who might be lovers of wisdom,
might have a subject for study, in which they might show the
joderstanding ; those truly who should make them-
and fit to receive wisdom. But the outlines
ose [truths], that are manifestly delivered in the
the Apostles, are these; First, that there is one
ted and made all things, nnd who, when nothing
■\t the whole universe into being, from the first
the foundation of the world, the God of alt the
m, Abel, Seth, Eno«, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Ahra-
icob, the twelve Patriarchs, Mosea, and the Fro-
nt this God in the last day«, as he had before
promised by his Prophets, sent our Lord Jesus Christ, first to
call Israel, and then, after the treachery of the people of Israel,

KO DIVXHB nfFOBlUlfT. 183

the Gentiles. Thb just and good God, the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ bimself^ gave the law^ and the prophets, and the
gospels, being also the God of the Apostles, and of the Old and
New Testament. Then, that Jesus Christ himself who came,
was begotten of the Father before all creatures ; who^ after he
bad ministered to the Father in the creation of alt things, for by
him all things were made, in the last times depriving himself of
his glory, being made man, was incarnate through God ; and,
when made man, remained what he was, God. He assumed a
body similar to our body, differing only in that it sprung from
the Virgin and the Holy Spirit. And that this Jesus Christ was
bom and suffered in reality, and not merely in appearance suf-
fered the death which is common to all ; be was truly dead ; for
he truly rose from the deady and having conversed with bis dis<
ciples after bis reurrection, was taken up into heaven. Then
further, they have declared that the Holy Ghost is associated in
dignity and honor with the Father and the Son. In this it is
not yet clearly discerned whether he [i. e. the Holy Spirit] is
to be considered as begotten or not^^ or a Son of God or not.
But these points are to be inquired intOy as far as we are able,
from the sacred Scripture, and to be in'^estigated by acute re-
search. That that Spirit truly inspired all the sainfe, both the
Prophets and Apostles ; and that there was not one Spirit in the
ancients, and another in those who were inspired at the advent
of Christ, is most clearly proclaimed (prasdicatur) in the churches.
Moreover, that the soul, having a subsistence and life of its
own, when it shall depart out of this world, shall be dealt with
according to its deserts ; and shall either enjoy eternki life and
the inheritance of blessedness, if its deeds shall have afibrded
it this blessing, or shall be committed to eternal fire and punish-
ment, if its wickedness shall have brought upon it such a fate ;
and, moreover, that there shall be a time of the resurrection of
the dead, when this body, which is now sown in corruption, shall
rise in incorruption ; and that which is sown in dishonor shall
rise tB glory. That, also, is declared in the ecclesiastical tradi-
tion (praedicatiooe), that every rational soul has a free choice
and vrill ; also that it has a contest to wage against the devil and
his angels and opposing powers, because they strive to load it
with sins ; while we, if we live correctly and prudently, endeavor
to free ourselves from such a burthen. Whence it follovirs that
we must understand that we are not subjected to necessity, so as
to be compelled to do either good or evil against our inclination*

1 Such it Rafllnat't teiiton, in which tloiM this woik mMint. Bat JarooM
(Ep. ftj. Atit. 134, Yall.) tayt the words were, «• mede it not mtde," whkh from
Origen'e statemenu oittwhere was do doubt the cmo, (Sto p. 341.)

184 FATBUnCJLL nuoiTioif

For if we are free agents, some Powers may perhaps impel us
to sin* and others assist us in obtaiDiog salvation ; but we are
not compelled by necessity either to do well or ill, as those think
who say that the course and motions of the stars are the cause
of human actions, not only of those which happen beyond the
liberty of the will, but also of those which are placed within
our own power." He proceeds to observe that, with respect to
the origin of the soul, there is no sufficiently clear testimony;^
and adds; — ''Concerning the devil and his angels and evil
Powers, the ecclesiastical tradition (prsedicatio) hath taught us
that they exbt ; but what are they, or what is their nature, it
has not sufficiently clearly explained. Most, however, entertain
the opinion that the devil was an angel, and having become an
apostate, persuaded very many anp;els to transgress with himself^
who are still called his angels. Further, the ecclesiastical tra-
dition (praedicatio) informs us that the world was made and had
a beginning, and is to be destroyed for its wickedness. But what
was before this world, or what shall be after the world, is not
clearly known to many. For there is no clear testimony con-
cerning these things in the ecclesiastical tradition (praedicatione).
Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of
God, and have not only the sense which is apparent, but also an-
other concealed from most. For those things that are described,
are the outlines of certain mysteries (sacramedtorum) and the
images of divine things. On this point the whole church is
agreed, that the whole law is spiritual, but that those things
which the law intimates are not known to all, but to those only
to whom the gift of the Holy Spirit in the word of wisdom and
knowledge is vouchsafed .... That is also to be found in the
ecclesiastical tradition, that there are certain angels of God and
good Powers who minister to him in promoting the salvation of
men ; but when they were created, or of what kind they are, or
what is the mode of their existence, is not sufficiently clearly
pointed out But with respect to the sun, and moon, and stars^
whether they have souls or not, is not clearly delivered. It be-
hooves, therefore, every one who desires to form a connected
statement and body [of theology] out of all these, to use such
truths as elementary and fundamental, according to the precept
that says, enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge, that
by the aid of manifest and necessary positions, he may diligently
search out, with respect to each individual point, what is the truth ;

1 De anima Tero atnim ex semiDia traduce dacatnr, ita nt raUo tpaina vel sob*
itefitia inaerta ipaia aaminilHM corpoi^bus babeatar, an taro aliud habeat iniUum ;
et boc ipsum iaitium si genitttm eat aut non genitaio ; vel certe ai extrinaecas
corpori inditur, necae» non aatk mtnifiMta pwadkatiftnt diatingiiitttJ-.

l%6 PATBUnCAL TlUDmoif

bave been exposed for ages to mutiiation and cormption, and
have confessedly sufiered therefronif as in the case of Irenaeus
and Origeo can hardly be denied.

However, then, vfe may regard their statements as tending to
confirm the truth, and affording an additional motive to men to
believe it, to put them forward as a divine informant is both un-
fair and unwise, calculated only to prejudice the truth in the eyes
of thinking men, who may be doubtful respecting it, when they
see our anxiety thus to stop their mouths and cut short their
doubts by unfounded claims to evidence " practically infallible"
in our favour.

Every man of common experience in such matters will feel
how liable these individuals were to be warped by their own
views and prejudices in their statements of the doctrine of the
Apostolical churches. Nay, I would confidently appeal to our
opponents themselves, whether in this statement of Origen there
is not distinct evidence of the influence of his own private views
in his remark as to the double sense of Scripture. And yet he
puts it down definitively as a point in which the whole church
agreed ; and consequently when he comes to the exposition of
Scripture, he turns plain narratives into the most fanciful alle-
gories. He is found fault with on this very ground by Jerome,
who complains that he *' makes his own fancies mysteries of the
churchJ*^^ Have we not here a distinct proof that such state-
ments cannot be fully depended upon 1

, They are, in fact, when descending at all into particulars, too
much like the large and general statements of the Romanists, as
to the prevalence of their views, such, for instance, as that of
the great opponent of Bishop Jewell, Harding, as to the preva-
lence of private masses, when he says, " So it is all Greece over ;
so it is in Asia, in Syria, in Assyria, in Armenia, and whereso-
ever the religion of Christ is professed." (See Jewell's Def. of
Apol. Pt. 5, ch. 15, div. 1.) But is this to be quoted some thou-
sand years hence in the absence of evidence to prove the asser-
tion as sufficient to establish what is there stated, even though
half a dozen others of the same persuasion should say the same ?

It is undeniable, indeed, that many of the best of the Fathers
were very apt to make large and general statements in favour
of their views, which if examined might often be shown to be
exaggerated statements even by the documents that happen to
remain to us; as, if necessary, I will show, but otherwise I have

1 Ingeniiiiii soam fkcit eeclesis MoramenCa. In la. Kb. 6. Prof. Op. torn. 4.
eol. 168. And were we to take Jerome'a aecoant (Ep. ad Avit.) ef the work
from which we bave quoted above, instead of Rufiinua'a probably Qnfaifhful ver-
•ion, we ahoold find Origen claiming the sanction of the church for vital errora.

187

DO wish to tnke a conne which might diminiih that respect
which is their due.

I must add, however, that this statement of Origeo appears to
me clearly to labour under this fault ; particularly when I ad-
vert to the language of Tertullian, when delivering the Creed
quoted from him above, where be eeems clearly to intimate th»t
what was beyond the rule of faith be bad giv<
lished as that rule was, but more open to in^
therefore, we may reasonably doubt whether
sufficient ground, half a century afterwards, to
two or three times longer, and pronounce so di
the Apostolicity and universal reception of vari
Such assertions partake of the infirmity of their authors.

Nay, it appears to me that the first sentence of the third sum-
mary given by Tertullian is, to say the least, very open to an
unorthodox interpretation ; and I confess more than open to it,
in my opinion, because there is confirmatory evidence in favor of
it in other parts of Tertullian's writings, and even in the same
treatise. He says, — " Unicum Deum credimus ; sub hoc lamen
dispensatione quam CBConomiam dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et
filius, sermo ipsius," Slc. These words may be understood, J ad-
mit, in an orthodox sense, but Ibe question is, in what sense they
were used by Tertullian ; and I shall show presently, that there
are several passages in bis works, indicating that the dispensation
or (economy of which he here speaks, was a temporary state of
existence, by which it would appear that he held the notion of,
not a permanent but only, a dispensations I and temporary tri*
personality in the Godhead. His view, in a word, appears to
have been somewhat like that of Marcellus.*

If such, then, is the case, we here see another specimen of the
way in which the sentiments of the individual may influence his
dehvery of the faith preached by the Apostolical Churches.

At the very best, what is the real state of the case with re*
gard to these summaries? Clearly that all such statements are
to be received with caution and reserve, as emanating from men
who might not only be deceived when they made such large
statements, but might, with the best intentions and an orthodox
meaning, speak hastily, unguardedly, and incorrectly, and so a>
to give countenance to an error not in their minds at the time,
and still less, perhaps, in the minds of those to whom they were
referring. And if so, it is quite clear that the consciences of men
are not to be cMicluded and bound by such statements.

I D« PrMcr. e. 14. S*g alw) Adr. Man. i. SI.

) »«e TheiMJurei. Hsret. F>b. lib. ii. S 10. (ed. ScbalM. torn. ir. p. S30.)

188 YATRIBTICAL TRADTTIOK

Still further, (and most important it is to observe this,) these
statements clearly place definite limits, and those narrow
limits^ to the doctrines for which the consent qf the early
church can be with any decent show of probability pleaded.
For, not to confine ourselves to those of Irenaeus and Tertullian,
which maj be said only to be intended to refer to the most essen-
tial points, nothing can be clearer than that Origen here gives us
as he supposes a definite list and account of all the points for
which the consent of the early church might be pleaded, and
states that nothing beyond those points was capable of any
such confirmation. Can there, then, be a greater absurdity
than that any man living long afber him should attempt to add
to these other points of catholic consent? Surely at the very
most we must be contented with Origen's list We cannot in
reason pretend to enlarge it

To claim, indeed, the consent of the early Apostolical
Churches upon points about which there was, as faras we know,
no discussion among them, but which subsequent heresies
brought into notice, is evidently most unreasonable. True, we
may perhaps find such a notice of those points in very early au-
thors as may justly lead us to suppose that they held this or that
view respecting them, and this is to us as far as it goes a confir-
mation of the correctness of the view which they support. But
I need not say that such indirect notices of points not in ques-
tion, are but an indifferent proof of the sentiments even of the
writers.

Now, with respect to these statements, it is obvious that there
is hardly a point in dispute among Christians at the present day
that can be settled by them, except, perhaps, as to the article of
the divinity of our Lord against those who consider him a mere
man. And, surely, no one will pretend to say that they are
clearer upon this point than Scripture is.

The principal value of these summaries, as it appears to me,
lies in the testimony they bear to the genuineness of the writings
of the New Testament It was not pretended by Irenaeus or
Tertullian, (whatever might be the case with Origen,) that they
stated anything more than was to be found in the writings of the
New Testament, but when the heretics denied the genuineness
of parts of the Sacred Writings, these Fathers adduced as an argu-
ment in favor of the doctrines contained in them, that those
doctrines were still preached in all the Apostolical Churches.
And so we might argue now in a similar case ; though with some
abatement from the want of documents and proximity to Apos-
tolical times, and other favorable circumstances which these
writers enjoyed. That is, if any one denied the genuineness of
parts of &:ripture in which the doctrines of the incarnation, re*

xo Dnmri nrwovMAxn. 189

rarrection, &c as stated iu these sumiparies, are delivered, vre
might argue from the widely-extended, acceptance and inculca-
tion of such doctrines among the followers of Christ, from the
earliest to the present times, that such doctrines formed part of
the Christian faith, and hence obtain an indirect argument for
the genuineness of the parts questioned.

With us, however, who hold the genuineness and inspiration of
the whole of these writings, it is both absurd and irreverent to
the Divine Author of Scripture to be guided by an account of
those doctrines given us by fallible men, instead of going at once
to the Divine Word, and taking our views from thence.

And so thought the earliest writer we have subsequent to the
Apostolical age, Justin Martyr, who says to Trypho when abiout
to prove the divinity of Christ, ** There are some, I admitted, of
our community (yiMi^,) who confess that he [Jesus] is Christ, but
affirm that he is a man, born of men ; with whom I do not agree,
nor should I evtnif the great majority of those who areofmy
own religion should say so ^ since we are commanded by Christ
himself to be ruled by,not thedoctrinesof men, but those preached
by the blessed prophets, and taught by bim."^

At the same time, I beg to be understood as noaintaining that
the evidence of patristical tradition forms a very important and
powerful argument in favor of the correctness oi any interpreta-
tion of Scripture so supported.

Let us observe, how one of the earliest Fathers uses the aimi-
iQent The writer to whom I allude is the Author of " The
Little Labyrinth/' composed against the heresy of Artemon about
the commencement of the third century, and of which the follow-
ing fragment is preserved by £usebius. " The heretics say,*'
observes this author, " that all the antients, and the Apostles
themselves, both received and taught those things which they^ow
affirm ; and that the truth of the gospel (t«p Mf <^a^t«() was pre-
served until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop
of Rome from Peter ; but that from the time of his successor
Zephyrinus the truth was adulterated. Jind the remark would
perhaps be probable but for that first the divine scriptures
OPPOSED THEM, and that there are wTitings of certain brethreit
older than the times of Victor, which they wrote against the
heathen in defence of the truth and against the heresies of that
time. I mean the writings of Justin, and Miltiades, and Tatian,
and Clement, and many others, in all of which Christ is spoken of
as God. For who is ignorant of the volumes of Ireneus, and
Melito, and the rest which speak of Christ as God and man? And
bow many psalms and hymns of brethren written by believers

1 Sm Um pMMfB ia e. 10 below.

190 PATBUnCAL TBADinoir

from the beginning praise Christ as the Word of €rod, and speak

of him as God (<••» A«y#f w Buv ff Xft^r^^ vf^uv^i $§$Xty0Pfru 7)

How, therefore, is it possible, that when the doctrine received by
the church was preached so many years ago, all up to the time
of Victor should have preached such doctrine as they say ? And
how is it that they are not ashatned to bring this false accusation
against Victor, knowing well that Victor excommunicated Theo-
dotus the tanner, the leader and father of this €rod-denying apos*
tasy, who first maintained that Christ was a mere man. For if
Victor, according to them, entertained such notions as their blas-
phemy teaches, bow could he have cast out Theodotus the author
of that heresy t"*

Now here are no high-sounding claims of universal consent,
which even at that early period could not be strictly verified. No ;
these are left for the heretics to make, who, as we here plainly
see, liked the argument as well as others have done. But the
matter is placed upon iust and reasonable grounds. The claim
of the heretics, that their doctrine was held and preached by
the Apostles and all their earliest followers, is denied, first, be-
cause THE DocTRinB WAS OPPOSED TO SCRIPTURE, and sccoudly, be-
cause SOME of their earliest followers had left writings in which
the contrary was maintained. Now this is precisely the ground
taken by the reformers and their true followers. Heresy is re-
futed first by Scripture, and then antiquity is appealed io in con-
firmation, to show that what is considered the orthodox doctrine,
the correct interpretation of Scripture, is no novelty, but has
been held by many from the earJiest times. In a word, the ar-
gument from patristical tradition is pressed only so far as it can
be made good. And I need not add, that if this was the best
mode of arguing in the third century, we have infinitely stronger
reasons to adopt it now.

This fragment, moreover, shows us how little we can rely upon
the assertions of individuals, that the catholic consent of the early
church was in favor of their views; for here we see, that a di-
rect claim was made to that consent at the commencement of the
third century, as favorable to the heresy of Artemon, while
Origen (nearly a contemporary) claims it for the opposite doctrine.
Both could not be right ; and it would little advance the cause of
truth to assert, that one party was to be believed and the other
not. And as to proof, neither could prove their assertions, ex-
cept so far as quotations from a few antient writers could prove
them. Artemon, perhaps, could hardly have done that ; and his
orthodox opponent just quoted does not pretend to do more.

Further ; the heresy of Arius remains untouched by these state*

•

> Eiueb. H. B. t. S8. RonUi lUliq. Smt. toI. iL pp. 7, 8.

VO DIVnnB PIFOBXATYT. 191

ments, for he and his followers have always ackoowledged the
divinity of Christ, but have considered it as in certain respects in-
ferior to that of the Father Their heresy consists in drawing
subtile distinctions between the nature of the Father and the
Son, against which these statements of the doctrine held by the
Apostolical Churches prove nothing ; because, though we may be-
lieve that the term God is not properly applicable as the Arians
have applied it, this is hardly more than a matter of opinion.

Moreover, as these summaries will affi>rd us no help against
the errors of Anus, neither will they against those of pfestorius
or Pelagius, or indeed scarcely[any of the vexatm qusssiiones that
have agitated the church in modern times.

By these statements, then, even admitting that they may be
fully depended upon as infallibly correct, the doctrines that can
be supported by the catholic consent of the early church are
redttcal witUn an exceedingly narrow compass, so narrow, that
it is hardly worth disputing about whether that consent, as here
represented, is to be regarded as binding upon the conscience or
not ; for even as to the important point of the divinity of Christ
against the Socinians, I suppose that he who can explain away
the declarations of Scripture, that ** the Word was God/' &c.,
can as easily explain away the testimony borne to that truth in
these statements* For as ** an excellent writer, thoroughly qon-
veirsant in these subjects" (as Bishop Home calls him, when quot-
ing the following testimony) has said, '< Cannot on^ know that the
Socinian interpretation oi John i. 1, and Hebr. u 10, or of the
texts relating to Christ's pre-existence, is not the mind of Scrip-
ture t Yea, one may know it as certainly as that a counter is not
the king's coin, or that a monster is not a man."^

In proceeding to consider the nature of the evidence which we
possess in the writings that remain to us of the first three centu^
ries, upon the points connected with Arian, Macedonian, Nesto-
rian, Eutychian, Pelagian, and such like errors, in connexion
with our present subject, I am entering upon an examination
which I would fain have been spared the necessity of making.
Much rather would I have been engaged in showing to those who
may oppose the orthodox doctrine in these points^ the strength
of the evidence in favor of orthodoxy, than in showing, against
those who are setting up unwarranted claims for the supreme
authority and conscience-binding nature of that evidence as
catholic consent and a divine informants that it has no claim
to such a character. To show the weak side of one part of the
argument for truth is a painful task, and one which, no doubt,
exposes one to the being placed in the unenviable predicament of

1 Bp. Hone's Sermon et Cant Joly 1, 1780. Ozf. 1786. p. 13.

i

102 TlTKItnOAL TRADtTlOlt

being quoted bj the unorlbodox as a friend oT error, nnd abflsed

by Ibe hot and violent champions of orthodoxy as having aided

the cause of heresy. T will not, however, allow myself to be

deterred, even by the prospect of such a fate, froin holding out

a warning against placing truth in any degree upon a foundntioB

that will not stand investigation. Our opponents seem to me like

men, who when they have got a rock to build upon, prefer

making their foundation partly of sand, and moreover putting

the sand uppermost; and the consequence is, that even in points

where they may have got the right foundation underneath them,

their whole edifice is in danger; because, not satisfied with the

the sand above it. 1 think then, that I

persuade those who are about to build for

led with the rock ; and this I shall best do,

t what our opponents have added to the

IN little better tiian sand. It may be very

lie construction of the buildup, but it will

: doctrine of the Trinilr.

consent among the writings that remain to

ituries,even upon this fundamental point T

be Divinity of the Holy Spirit
, most clear and satisfactory testimonies to
in some of the writer* of this period ; a.
tact, which 1 trust every reader will bear in mind, while I pro-
ceed to point out other authors of this period who have borne a
contrary testimony.

Thus, for instance, Cyprian says, " If a penon may be bap-
tized among the heretics, be may also obtain the remission of
his sins. Ir he has obtained the remission of his sins, be is also
snnctilied, and made the temple of (Jod. I ask, of what GodT
If of the Creator, it is impossible, for he has never believed io
him; if of Christ, neither can he be his temple, who' denies
Christ to be God; if of the Holy Spirit, since the three are one,
how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy
either of the Father or the Son.'"

Nothing can be clearer than this; and many other similar
testimonies might be brought from the writers of this period.

I Nim n biptinri qaiii tpud haieticM potnil, otifne at imiiwim peceiloraiii
CODirqui pntiiiL Hi peccitarom remiHini cooNcuIni Mt et MDctificalm Mt rt
icmplum Dri full]* Mt. Quaro. coja* Dei 1 ttj CreM«», odd poiait. qui in
com Hon cndidit: r Chriiti, nee bujoa fleri poleet lenplam qui nagil Detm
Chnemm : n Spiriiui Baocti, can ire* nnam tint, qdomodo Hpirittu Seoctui
plinttue eeMei poteo, qui lot Ptttie BDt Filii inhnica* eel! CjprUu.Ep. 73.
•d, PumL CoL AgT. ISIT. p. IDS.

:IO DITIMlt nFOBMATTT. 193

But as our opponents cinim the consent of all the writers of the
primitive catholic church for it, our present object is to show
the error of this notion, by pointing out writers of the catholic
church who delivered in their writings unorthodox doctrine on
this point.

Thus, then, speaki Origen. He is cocnmenting on 1 John I 3.
"AM things were made by him;" and he •ays, — "Since it a
true that nil things were made by him, we must inquire whether
the Holy Spirit was made by him. For I think that he who says
that it [the Holy Spirit] was made, and who
the declaration, " all things were made by him
embrace the notion that the Holy Spirit Was i
the Word beir^ more antient than the Spir
who is unwilling to believe that the Holy S
Christ, and yet judges what is contained in thi
it follows that he must call the Spirit unbegoti
But besides these two, him namely who beli
Spirit was made by the Word, and him who
tincreated [or, unbegotten], there maybe a tt
there is no proper personal existence of the '.
from the Father and the Son .... We t
there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, t
and believing that there is nothing unbegott
but the Father, receive as the most pious at
that of all the things made by the Word, the
RKist honourable, and ranks, higher than nil the things made
by the Father through Christ. And perhaps this is the reason
that he is not called the very Son of God, the only-begotten
alone being origioalty by nature Son, who appears to have been
necessary to the Holy Spirit, ministering to the formattoD of his
person, not only with respect to his existence, but with respect to
his being wise, and endued with reason, and just, and everrthing
which we ought to suppose him to be, according to the parti-

1 1n tbi> lod Iwo preceding plaeei I ktn inttmaMJ a doabl u to the readtof.
Mj rmion ii thia, ihiE it ippein to me Ibit in alt of Ihem wa mud, fTOUi the
nalure of th« aanMnca, raad tba tami won], that ia, in alt theaa placa we moat
cilhar read uncreated or wUefttten, which wordi in (he Greek differ only in one
latter, being itymrm and aymrm, aad aa Dr. Burton (On Trio, p, 99,) nja,
" the flndence of MSS. i* *erj little in theae caaea." He adds, ipeiking of the
jtrtf In* caaea, " I ihould be inelioad to rMd trt*nrtia in both placea," not obearr-
ia^, I think, that if ao we muat probablj read aymmt, or, -mu^eattd, in the third
place, which affecta the real ditinity of the Stn, from which error Dr. B. tiaa an-
dcBToured to leacae Origen. bat of which he ia lehamnill; aceaead bj aome of
the beat anthoritiea of the earl; charcb, aa I ahall notice preeeotlj. It ^paaM
to me that it}«mr i« probablj the tiua ntdinf I& all thMa placea,
VOL. 1. a

194 VA-nancAi. traditiuh

cipatioD of those qualities of Cbriit wbicb we have already
meationed."*

And again, soon after, be twice repeats that the Hcd; Spirit
was made by the Word or Logos.'

It appears to me a waste of words to attempt to reccHtcUe this

passage with the Orthodox doctrine. Nor am I aware of any

clear and decisive passage to be found in Origen in oppoutioti to

the statement here made, and in support ofthe orthodox doctrine,

hoee translations of his works by Ruffinus,

are of no authority, as having been noto*

translator. And, further, when we find

rome, Basil, Epiphaoius and Pbotius, all

is sentiments on the subject of the divinity

Spirit a» unsound, can we suppose that

3r the accusation 7

0 is said to have succeeded Origen in the
Pbotius informs us, that in bis writings
;erous and impious doctrine concerning the
that be is inferior in glory to the Father
barge against him of other errors,
brought by Pbotius against Theognostus.*
be freed from the same error. For in bta
lot only does he say that "every spirit is a
creature,"* hut he calls the Paraclete " inferior to Christ,"' and
when treatii^ expressly, in the latter part of his treatise,' of Ibe

HI rytnn, u lui tt mtu/tK it ryai ii

Xfutm yrytut^, mrai to aynmr amt t.tym, bxjiS* t« n T* KMyyttJU T«nw owf

/la TO i(j«r yryrmMi, lai ttii ar^ttrra aimt ut*j ^>Ti^*^S^rspTa, i'-y/nni^itt fat, ««rm»
tnt itau i»trt<u*l tmayK^ rmi/i-anHrTtam xnf* -nt wit-nfo. nUTO ut< ■ . ... 'HfiME
pHTSij* ifvt vrmnajtiit imfls/JBiii Tvj-Jtann, toi n*TW«, itaj ia ub,, xm t« aym ■rm-
fio, 1*1 «><nnT« fuitit tnooi tok n*rwc utmi tnTTtiemt, Be liriStnifs, iBU UjStt, b»w-
nutSi T«, mtnw tia. TW My" ymnimm, ts t.yia wymfi* icarrm tniu tIjUuitwwi «" thJu
K-aprai TW utii T«i Tlviftt t"- Xfurmu yrymtfinm. Km Td;^<t luni WTit ■ ut« iu fa

Xf^ta Kot Ts <c>iu wmfi*, Jmuwkwtk avna -n imffrti, w fnm ue tt mi, ««•

•Ml uttn uuu, HA \r^iMa, tai taaat, xoi *■** irarra-t Xf •"" '••'> ''vyx,aia. Hum
titTiX" """ ^f<*f !'*"•' 'fUr Hfiimu trnutn. Oris. Comcpsiil. ID Jobliin. lODl. ii.
^ 6. Op torn. IT. pp. 60—68.
3 To mufia ym^it or /u •nv Ae>«< ?•>*> nu- lb. p. 6S. Hnd Me p. 69.

aim TIC Tw n«T^ Biu Tmv vtewwi <h£>c- Pkox. Blbliolb. Atl. 1 19. Co). 900.
•d. 16&3.

< lb. Art. 104. ool. SSO.

> Otani* Bpirhoi crMtwm Mt. «. 7. ad FuwI. ram Op. Tertull. Col. Agr.
16 IT. bl.

• Minor Ghriito Pandeua. c. XI, ib.

^ 8m c. 30. .

Ko DiTcn nrroBiuiiT. 1S&

Rdy ^irit, lie nerer ifaows blm to be God, or speaka of Urn as
God, though be bad before proyed at large of tbe Father and the
Son, that tbej were God; aod towards the conclusion affirming
that the Father and Chriat, though both God, are but one God,
and rebutting the accusation he alleges to have been brought
againat blm, that he thus made two Gods, he takes no notice of
the Holy Spirit, nor joins him with Christ in the unity of the
Godhead.* These pasaagea are referred to hj Fatneliua, who
was well able to pronounce judgment in such a case, as show-
iDg the unorthodox character of his
And still further, this very treatise is s:
been circulated by the Alacedonians, tl
of tbe Holy Spirit, ag favorable to the

Of Lactantius, we are told by Jero
and especially in his letters to Demet
the enUty of the Holy Spirit, and by a
ia to be referred either to tbe Father
holiness of each person is pointed out i

And, lastly, the same Father, Je

TBHODQH lUSORANCE OF THE SCKIPTUI

anus does in the eighth book of his I
the Father and Son are often called
we''ought clearly to believe in a Trini
tiiird Person imagine it to be not a hyj
a name."*

And if we include Euseblni (whose orthodoxy is stoutly con-
tended for by some) among these Fathers, we shall find a pas-
sage precisely similar to that of Origen. He tells ns that the
Holy Spirit is " one of those things that were made by tbe Son,
for ' all things were made by bim,' " and he adds that this is tbe
doctrine of " the catholic and holy church. "*

Further, as to any notion of the correct orthodox doctrine

I Sec c. 30. '

* Ap*l. pro Orig. Intel, Op. Oris. »A- Bm. torn. i*. App. p. 09.

■ Laetmliai id libri* lOi* «t muima io Eplitolu ad DtmetriwiDm Spirhni
Stneti omaioo oegat lubBtaDtiam, et enore Judaico dicit cum T4I *d Fitnm re-
fcrri vel Filiam et ■■ncliScationem ulriu«que Penonn cub ejus Domine demon-
ctnri. HiEKDB. Ep. ad Pammach. et Ocean. \ T. Ep. 84. Vail. 41. Ben. 69. aL

t Haiti per impedtiem Scriptarsniii) (quod ct Firmiiana in octsve ad Dema-
triaoum EpiitolarDm libro facit) tanraat Spirilnm Sanetam aape Palrem acpe
Filiuia nominuL Et quum penpicoe ia Tiinitale ctedamne, tartiam Panonun
•ofitrenlei non mbaCantiaiii ejoa volant esM, sed nomen. Id. Ia Ep. ad GaL lib.
ii. Id c 4. Tar. 6. ad. Vail. Van. torn. tU. ml, 460.

t Ta tl rafaMjrtm TIm,iia, iim Bm, sini Ticc' im /a vl tai na^^c uuhk tb Tm
tai ami tn yotrn untn. 'Ei ti ii t« tia. t'mi Tim ymt/imm tvyx'^i v" i"" ("wa
A' artai ry»m, lui X't" ""<" ratine wJl a, tmytt, ftn «vt .nc Koilgua*! xai t.ymt
ExuirlM lA <r> tu rai Sun tmar r*faii/vTU &» (imTiiiia. Edmb. Da EcdM.

Theolog. lib. iii. 0. 8. p. 1T6. (CA l«88.)

196 fATBttnOAt TKADITXOK

havii^ bera handed down to potterity by tbe catholic Fathers
of this period, as a body^ it is thus sammarily overthrown by
Basil, who denies that there was any such dehvery of it to be
found in the writings of those Fathers even in his time. For
he says, that the ijuestion reuiecting tbe Holy Spirit having
been passed over in silence oy the antients [L e. compara-
tively^ for there were some exceptions], through its not bavipg
been opposed, was l^t unexplained^ aod tl^refore that he
would proceed to discuss it agreeably to the mind of Scrip-
ture;^ and though he here says that it was passed over in
silence through its not having been opposed, this is in contra*
diction to his own testimony elsewhere^ for he has accused
Origen,' (if, at least, the latter part of the book on tbe Holy
Spirit is bis,) and certainly Sionysius of Alexandria,' of having
in their writings delivered unorthodox doctrine respecting tbe
Holy Ghost ; and hence it was probably, viz. from the neglect
of tbe early Fathers on this point, that^ in tbe time of Basil, tbe
opponents of the orthodox doctrine accused the catholics df io<^
troducing novel doctrine when they insisted on the divinity of the
Holy Spirit*

Further, as it respects the full orthodox doctrine of the divinity
and generation of Christ, have we such consent? I admit with
thankfulness that against the Sociqians the testimony of those
that remain to us of the Catholic Fathers is, if we take their
works, as they ought to be taken, as a whole, unanimous. But
that their witness is one whit stronger or more precise than that
of several passages of Scripture, and upon which by the way
their testimony seems grounded, I utterly deny. But have we
such testimony for the full orthodox doctrine on this point ? Let

us inquire.

I begin with Tatian, whose << Oration against the Greeks" was-
written before bis defection to tbe heresy of Valentinus. He
speaks thus ; — *^ God was in tbe beginning ; but the beginning we
have understood to be tbe power of reason. For the Lord of the
Universe being himself the subsistence of all things,^ was, as it
respects the non-existence of creation at that time, £|lone. But
inasmuch as he was all Power, and was himself the subsistence of
all things visible and invisible, with him were all things ; for with
him throt/Lgh his power of reason tbe Word himself also who

roic irtOiMy ^lA <i« tuHO^Nfmrtity «W^/M»Te» immiKit^ (xt^ ^ <ro «^ «rov Aytou mwutu-
Toc) fffOT'rStfAtv TOf 9n^ rwrw ktyo9 mjUKtvBmt iri *nf >f«f»c mom. Basil. Ep. 169.
torn. Si. p. 248.

2 De Spire Stnct. c 29. ^ 73. torn. ill. pp. 61, 2.

3 Ep. 9. torn. iii. p, 91.

4 See § 7 of this chapter, below«

B As Tertullian stys, <* Ipse sibi et nmndtts et loeuf et omnia/'

no DIvniE X5F0&XAI9T. ] 97

was in him subsisted, fiat by the will of bis single-mindedness
the Word comes forth ; but the Word not having proceeded from
him in vain, becomes the firstborn work of the Father. This
we know to be the beginning of the world. But he [the Word]
was produced by distribution not abscission. For that which is
cut off is separated and taken away from the first ; but that which
arises by disrtribution, having assumed an (Economical condition,
doeii not leave that from which it is taken destitute of it. For as
from one torch many flames are produced, but the light of the
first torch is not lessened by the ignition of many torches, thus
also the Word haying come forth from the power of the Father,
did not leave him who begot the "Word destitute of it For also
I speak and you hear. And yet I who address you do not by any
means become destitute of my word through the transmission of
it."*

Here the Word seems clearly represented to have heen pro-
duced but just before the creation of the world, as a personal
agent, and before his birth for the formation of the world to have
existed only in the reason of the Father. This is a doctrine
which several of the early Fathers whose writings remain to us
have delivered, and particularly Tertullian as we shall see pre-
sently. But it is certainly contrary to the doctrine of the co-
eternity of the Son with the Father, as Son, and rs el personal
agent. There are also other expressions in this passage not very
agreeable to the orthodox doctrine, such as that the Word is
** the firstborn tvdrk of the Father," and that the distribution (to
use his own word) of the Godhead into three Persons was an
oeconomical statie of the Godhead ; on which matter we shall have
some further remarks to make when we come to consider the
testimony of Tertullian."

The same doctrine is delivered by Athenagoras, who says of

Kdcdo ^f ^A9U ii/fttJtjiKy ofd/Tcn ti tuu dopttrm/ tun^tvTno^aa-K Wy ovf tunm ta n-evna^ avf
dvrm yAf lia Xcy<ufc hrmutan auth juu o h£yo( Umt9 Aura ma^nft. StkufXA/rt i^t ftic
etrxoTvrof Aurw fc^t/mt^A Xo^cc. o h Xoyof ey xterdt *nw >»M0-etc> ifyvi v^enwQiwi *rbw tta-
tpot ywftAt, Tm/tw lo-fjuf TOW Koc-fA6v mt t$pxjn. Try^n o* tuttA fiwTfjtof^ w ka/ta Ajrctio-
fw. To yxfi AToTftifdfr rou ^rfmrta K*x($pt^rAt' to h lAt^tv^n otAOfc/jttAt m Atftait wpoff"-
XtL^of ouK tvS*A Toy ofi«y %t)jm'^Ai 'JTWoitntw. mrrnf yAfi A-re fjUA« /dc/cc A»A3r*nfrAi fjtn trv^
voxx«9 T4C ^ff trftrm i^tj'ot S'm rtn i$«4ir rm Toxxofv Sa^ m/r iX«TTDVT«i-^e ^ok* iurm tuu
• Aoyo( ^fiM\Btt¥ i» T»c TOO 4rAT^ i^Afjimt, ouK Akcyof wnmM Tor ytytnnxvtA. K ai yAf
AvToc rym XAXth *ai u/dmc AMvtn* mu w hmu itA t«c /utwrA&tntK *rou Ktiyw umo< o ^po-
ctfw^m htryw yoofAAt. Tatiajt. ConUr. Gr»c. Oral. § H, Ed. Ben. pp. M7, 8.
Tbe^ words aw Avrm yAf are pat by th^ Betaedietine editors within breckeis as of
doabtfal authority, bat withoat any eaffieient grOand. I have interpreted xo>4,
in ^e first place in which it occats, rea$on, for which rendering eee the obienra-
tions on Tertallian.

2 Fn connexion with these reqaarks see the dissertation on Tatian at the end
of Worth's edition. See also Cave, Kis(. Lit.

1 98 PATBIITIGAL TRABXTl6y

'* the Sod,'' tlmt ^ he k the firaUbom of the Father^ not as a
created beuiff» (for, from the beginning, God — being an eternal
mind — haathe Word {or Season) in hintaelf^ being endued
with reason from eternity,) but as having come forth to be the
form and energy of all material things.'' &c.^ And in the ivords
immediatelj preceding, he days, that <Mhe Son of God is the
Father's reason (or woi*d) in form and action."* So that the
generation of the Son is the putting forth of the Father's reason
in action, as a personal agent for the work of creatiod.

So Theophilus of Antioch. " God, therefore, having his Word
within him in his own bowels, brought him forth, baviog given
birth to him with his wisdom, before all things. This Word he
had as his minister in the creation of his works, and by him he
made all things."' And again : — ** The God and Father of the
universe is not comprehensible within any fixed space, and is not
found in any certain place. For there is no place of his rest.
But bis Word, by whom he made all thinss, being his power and
wisdom, assuming the appearance of the Father and iiord of the
universe, was present in Paradise in (he form of God, and con-
versed with Adam. For the Divine Scripture itself also teaches
us that when Adam spoke, he heard a voice ; but what else is
this voice, than without doubt the Word, which is of Grod, who is
also his Son t — not in the sense that poets and mythologists speak
of sons of Gods . . . but as truth declares, as the Word that was
always laid up within in the heart of God. For, before that
anything existed, he had this [Word] as his counsellor, being his
mind and understanding; but when God wished to make the
things he had resolved upon, he brought forth this Word as an
eternal Word, bom before the whole creation ; not being himself
rendered destitute of his Word, but, after havine generated the
Word, being still always in communion with his Word."^

1 Upttrw y^nmfML MdU «r» TlATpi, wx ^ y^tfJittw (if a^yji^^ytL^ o Oioc, nui du^n( m,
%txn etvroc m Utu^rm tov Ao>or. ojSuk aot^xoc m) akx* a»c rt$y vKiumf \ufAWxrrm . . . tl%A Kta
tft^yuA WM yrfotKBm. Athenag. Leg. pro ChrisdaoU. § 10. Ed. Ben. p. 287.

8 E^on ev9 o 0ioc To, itunou Ao>o» WmSwot it *ntf /^lotf «rx*y;^»W. trymnw m^w upta
*n»i iajurou a-o^utf ^M^vf «ft»o(r Tpo ttn ox«|r. Tooror tcv Ae>oy ^X^ vtrwfiyiif Tttfr uir' eu/-
rou yfytn/jtven, tuu h' aufreu ta ^iuta Trvroomm, Thboth. Ajitiogb. Ad. Auto. lib.
u. § 10, Ed. Ben. p. 355.

« <0 f*m 6mc juu Tlamip *rm ixm ai;^a^^ec w^n, jm/ or tnfrm wx hpi^ittrraj* ojiya^ trrr
ro^oc me jutnraarmvne$f mvtm/. <0 /# Acyoe pu/fwh, h* w <r« wmmt mrooiKt, iin^fjttf m
xtu ToptA mnwy «u«x«fei6«Nw to vpiwmrfit *tw n«M'^ jmi Kvf«iei/ tm eA«r> etlroc ^ntilrytfVT^
m Toy ira^tiAiimf m irpo0<mm rou 8mv, utf ^^Mku iw A/dUc. K«i y^tf m/uth i B*m yf«j^ h~
^tt9%u i/umf Tor Klmfx hx^vn^ txk ^mnt *Juizom*i pmu ri *n jujco t^rir} «txx' » o A0>oc »
*TW Qm/, cf irri luu vUf avrou, wx ^ m iroanM km fjtvBcyfn^ xtywro tAoui Omt tx cwf.
wfUL^ ytrfmfAMfWiy dLKKx •»; ax>9iMi fmyttrsui tov Aoyn tov omtSitKrMToe fiJiASi-roy v Ka^-
iuL TOW ©lot/, npcyap nri ym^At^ runof vx* oi/ftSowXtir, mnw root km P^ttia-n orr«t-
*0^rQTt h »dt\J»aiy o @ioc v^tm ova i&wkn^A/rtf &wrw Tor A9>ey ryrrrif^ Tpo^otiKw, irMt.
tfr^KW ^rmnK K*riv%»ii ov wniSvf «u/Toe tow Ae>6i/, *xx* A9>oy >»w»tf'«f km fm A.ym ccvtou
Itat^ttyrof i/jUkm. lb. % 22. p. 866. • '

HO OlVUm IVrOMMAST. IM

Here again it can hardly be maintained that the An'M viuJi*
THf the internal Word» when existing^ only as ** the mind and
understanding" of the Father existed as a person distinct from
the person of the Father ; and ttie generation of the ^•yt irf tf ••
fm^t, the external Word, is traced to a vokntary act of the
Father, taking place just before the creatioA of the world.

And here I would observe that in all these statements, as in
others which we shall notice presently, the veneration of the
Word or Son, is represented as an act of the Father's will, con-
tingent upon his conceiving the purpose of creating the world.^

A similar generation of the Word is also asserted by Hippoly-
tus, and in terms which seem clearly to indicate that before that
generation, he had not a distinct and penonal existence. For,
after speaking of this generation in terms very similar to those
we have already quoted, he observes, *' ^nd thus there was
present to him [L e. the Father] another. But when I say
another, I do not mean two Gods, but as light from light, or as
water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun."*

It is quite true that Bishop Bull has attempted to reconcile
these statement with the orthodox doctrine. Whether he has
explained them correctly, I leave the reader to judge*

But supposing that hb interpretation of them is the right one, it
does not appear to me to vindicate their orthodoxy.

Id whichever way we understand them, they appear to me
to be irreconcileable with the orthodox doctrine. For if, as some
think, and as the expressions used would certainly lead me to
conclude, these Fathers held that the Word or Son did not exist
as^ a Person^ until the generation of which they here speak,
which is unquestionably a generation for the purposes of creation,
they certainly spoke contrary to the generally-received orthodox
doctrine. But if, on the other hand, they intended by these
statements, as Bishop Bull supposes, to intinmte tbe existence of
the Word as a Person in the Father, before the generation of
which they here speak, then their statements amount to a main-
tenance of the doctrine of an original and e«^en/ta/ plurality
of persons in the Godhead, which is equally unorthodox.* For
they say that the Word or Reason {^•yn) was always in the
Father, because the Father was always endued with reason

1 That tbate •Utomeoti are Platonic rather thao ChriatlaD, ii allowed by Le
Quien and Lomper. See Lamp. Hist. Crit. Patr. vol. 8. pp. 170, dec.

8 K<u dJra^ ^Apto^dbTo tunm me;. *t.Ttf§9 /f Xfi4»r ov i'ud &iwc Kry&, *xx* ftc f *< fx
ftfToc, ». T. X. Hf ppoL. CoQtr. Noet. nam. 10* Ed. Fabric

s « There can be bat one Penon originally of bimtelf aabeiatins in that infinite
Being, beeauee a plurality of more persons so aabaisting would necessarily infer
a multiplicity of go<ls. . . . Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Christ,
who is certainly not ihe Father, cannot be a Person sabsisting in tbe Divine na-
ture originally of himef If." P&iiuoir, EtpOs. of Creed, pp. 308, 4. ed. Dobson.

too vAxmsmoAL tbadiviox

{kf*mH)j and ai beiag his **iiHad aod iotelligenee.*' Now the
Divine Being was origioaUy and epsentisdiy endued with reason
(Afy«c«f); and beoce^ according ta. these authors^ the Word or
Re^ison was originally and easentialty in the Father. If, there-
fore, we suppose that they meant that the Word (A«y«f ) existing
thus origioaily and essentially ia the Father was a Person^ their
language implies that there is an original and essential plurality
of persons in the Godhead. There is nothing in these statements
to bear out the ingenious fiction of Bishop Bull, that by the gene-
ration of which they speak, their authors meant a figurative or
metaphorical generation succeeding to k prior and eternal gene-
ration. Nay, on the; contrary, they speak of this generation as
that by which the Son became the Jirst begotten of the Father.
Ccmsequently, if he existed as a Person in the Father before this,
he existed, not as one generated of the Father, but as one origi"
nally existing as a Second Person in the Godhead ; and thus as
being equally with the Father, underived and without a begin-
ning.

Let us compare with them the language of lustin Martyr.
He says that <* before all created things, God begot a certain
rational power ()»r«^iii A«yis«) of himself,"^ which he proceeds
to say is called by the various names of the Son, the W^rd, &c.
This generation of the Son, is evidently the same as that spoken
of by the authors we have just quoted ; and is clearly no figura-
tive or metaphorical generation, but the generation of the Son,
which is here described (as it appears to me) as a putting forth
of that *' rational power" that always existed in the Father, as
B. personal agent ; for if this rational power, as it previously
existed in the Father, was a personal agent, then there was an
essential plurality of persons in the Godhead ; and the Second
Person was essentially and originally, and not by genen^tion, in
the Godhead ; which is contrary to the orthodox doctrine : for
though the essence of the Son existed originally in the Father,
and was not begotten of him, the person of the Son was begot-
ten of the Father.

Nay, more ; I would put it to the reader whether the Jan-^
guage of these writers is Dot such as clearly to show that they
considered the generatbn of which they here speak, to be the
donation of personality (if I may so speak) to the Word by the
Father, particularly that of Hippotytus. And their idea seems
to have been that the putting forth of the Father'si reason as a
personal agent, was like a lighted torch igniting another ; which
act of ignition does not dihainiish the light of the first torch, but
is, as it were, an extension or distribution of the original flame ;

> DiaL cam Tryph. % 61. p. 157. td. Bmu (

NO DnrnOB IRFOBMik^* 201

and 80 the ralkMial power of the Father wat net dimiaiihed by
this distributioQ of it

Nor is the argument of Bishop Bu)l against this^ derived from
their speaking of the Word or Son as having been always in the
Father, of any avail ; because their words may apply to the
essence^ and not the person^ and when they say that the wordy
or reason, A«yt«, was always in the Father, became the Father
was always and originally rational, A^yuMf, it seeois clear that
they were intended to be so applied. And it is )indenial>le that
such expressions were used in that sense ; as, for instance, by-
Paul of Satnosata, who, as Dr. Burton^ tells us, ^ believed the
Logos to be God, and to reside in the Father, but not to have a
separate existence." Nay, Dr. Burton, speakins of these very
writers, tells us' that theV borrowed their notions from^ the PlaUK
nizing Jews of Alexandria, who, as he says, *^ had learned a/mo^f
to personify the mind or reason of God, as may be seen in the
works of rhilo Judasus ;" wliile *Mt may be demonstrated that
these Alexandrian Jews did not really mean to speak of Wis-
dom, or the Reason of God, as distinctly existing Persons ji^^
and the cautions which Dr. Burton seems to think are given by
these writers against a Platonic application of the terms, I am
unable to find ; but, on the contrary, their words seem to me
clearly to show that they held that there was no Second Person,
till the generation of which they here speak.

When, therefore, Hippolytus calls the Son ** co-eternal with
the Father" {cvfmhu rm Uttrfi)^* there can be no doubt that
with his views he is speaking with reference to his essence ; for
otherwise he would contradict himself. It is, in fact, language
of the same purport as that which is used by those we have aJ«
ready quoted, when the Word or Reason is said to have been
always in the Father, because the Father was always endued
with reason (A<yi»«(). Let it not be replied that it would have
been absurd to have' used the words in that sense, because it is
undeniable that such language was used in that sense. Nay,
similar language was used, even where it was held that there
was a time when the Son viras only potentially in the Father.
. Thus Eusebius says,— ^ Moreo^ver it was judged not improper
that the saying that he was not before he was begotten, should
be anathematized ; seeing it was confessed by all that he was
the Son of God, even before his generation acceding to the fleshy

I Testim. of Ante-Nic. Fatheri to Div, of Chrift..2d od. p, 398.

< Testim. of Ante-Nic Fathers to Trin. p. 30.

' Demonttr. contr. Jad. c 7. Op. toI. 2. p. 4. The work « De coDiommationo
mundi et de Antiohriato/^ from which Bishop Boll gives an extract, in which
Christ is spoken of as 0VfKf atf^og rm n«T^/, is now by almost nniversal consent
adjadged spuriaus. Bee ^ippol. Op, ed. Fabric vol. 1. App. p. 3« and .p. 26.

SOS PATEIfTIOAl. TKADinOH

And Airtber, our emperor, beloved of Ood» ai^oed that he vrai
before all ages, even with respect to his Divine generation ; since
tven hqfore he was actually begotten^ he was potentially in
the Father without generation; the Father being always
Father, aB also always King and Saviour, and potentially being
cUl thingSyhoih alway-s and in the same manner, and continuing
unchanged."^ '

This pas^ge is, as might be expected frpm its author, evasive
and unorthodox, and in such a case where a single word makes
ail the difierence, we may reasonably hesitate to receive thiare-

E>rt of Constantine's opinions as one altogether trustworthy.*
ut be that as it may, the statement shows that the co-etemity
may be held in words where the sense in which it is held is any*
thing but orthodox. > For- God is here held to have been always
a Father only in the same way that he was everything else, that
is potentially 9 which strikes at the foundation of the doctrine of
the condubstantiality, as well as of the personal co-eternity.

True it is that there were others who used such terms to ex-
press the orthodox doctrine, and applied them to the Person of
the S/on, in order more effectually to refute the error of Arius,
who said that there was a time when the Son was not The
sense, therefore, in which these terms were used by any particu<^
lar Father must be determined by the views he has advanced
elsewhere.

1 may here Add also, that there seem^ to have been those who
though they anathematized the errors of Arius, scrtipled to use
such terms* The objection, in the case of many of them at least,
was that such terms seemed equivalent to a denial of the gene*
tk>n of the Son, and made Him a Person originally self^xistent
in the Godhead,^ and not from their denying his virtuat co*
eternity, ad the effulgence proceeding from light is virtually Co«
eternal with it. Their difference, therefore, in this respect^
was a mere difference in words, because there were some at
least who used these words, who' did not mean to eonvey by them
the idea of the Second Person in the Trinity being originally in
the Godhead as an underived Person.

Hence, perhaps, it was that the Nicene or Constantinopolitan
' ■ ■ ■ , •' > ' ' >

1 £t/ /4M9 TO d9ASiiJia/ri(%&B*t9 <ro fl'po vw ymiStifat ovk jn^ oux u.rcffny lyc^uM-S*, imjrdi^
TfajTtf IfjtdXeyuffBtUf ureu aturof ^m too ©tew tuu 5r^o *nc xa/rtt cdLpaa. yinttnan. Hwn ii o
Sfo^fXM-TttToc iuen &M^wt r» T^tym tutmoimm^ tuu luerd tm ir0iey att/rov ymtwtf *t»
^po 7r<aTm aunen mas tunoh unt tuu irpn 9t%f^%ui y^irnStfmUi A/ni^« mnrtt Tlttrpt ^Lyrnnt-
T«Kt oFToc Toi; Tltbrpoi mu TTArp^, «r tuu 6Aajhu»f tut, xdu 9-tnnf^y tuu iinttfAU WArrct orroc
tLU *r% XM iMW* *rdL Awroj tua ttc-duf^tt^' ^arroi, £uteb. Bpiflt. ap. Tbeodorit. fLviX,
EccL lib. i. c. 11. Op. torn. iiL pp. 781, 2.

2 See as opposite teitimoDy, Constantine'fl Letter to the Nicomediana agaioat
Euaebiua and Theognla, and hia Letter to Axiua iaOelaa. C7z.De. Act. Cone
Wlc p^ 3.

> See Athavu. De Synod. % S6. torn. i. p. 789. od. Boned.

MO DIVIZfB INFOmXAlfT. 203

Creed sajs of the Son, only that he vim begotten of the Father
before ail worlds or ages, {wf4 wmwrmf rm9 «i#f«^). Here the di-
rect affirmation goes no further than to maintain that the Son
was begotten of the Father before all time» or was, ufi some of
the Fathers express it, ^xfty A8 the Ariaos themselves allow-
ed.^ Indeed, the very wgrdd of the Constantinopolitah Creed
occurs in a Creed given by Atbanasius, as ope of the numerous
semiarian formubs drav^n up about the middle of the fourth cen*
tury.* . Aod certainly, as Dr. Burton says, ^ Qur powers of ab-
straction will perhaps not aHow us to have >a more definite idea
of eternal existence than this." (Testim. of Ante^Nic. Fathers to
Doctrine of Trinity, pp. 146^ 7w) It does no doubt imply eter-
nity, and I suppose was intended to ipfiply a virtual co-eternity
with the Father by most if not all of those who annexed it to
the Creed, though there might be others who used it in a lower
sense. The Creed was so worded probably for the sake of those
who would have scrupled the use of the words co-eternal with
the Father, though in reaHty holding the full orthodox faith;
and as it often bapp^a in such cases, the words are open to a
Ipwer sense.'

It appears to me, then,, that all these Fathers held, — ^That the
Son is not as a Person even virtually co-eternal with the Father,
his generation or prolation as a personal agent taking place be-
fore any act of creation, but yet not from all eternity, and taking
place for the purpose of his acting in the work of creation, and
contingently upon Grod's having conceived the purpose of creating
the world. - - - ^

Is this orthodox doctrine ? ,

Bishop ^Pearson says, ^'The essence which God always had
without beginning, without beginning he d}d communicate, being
always Father as always Gpd." (p. 209.)

It is quite true that it is not ^abellianism, because the Sabelli-
ans did not regard the. Son as ever becoming a distinct. Person,
nor is it Arian;9ai» because the Arians considered the Son to be
created by the Father, and of a different essence to the Father,,
whereas thee;^ Fathers considered the gieneration of the Son to be
only a prolation as a personal agent of that reason, or word,
which was always and esseiltially in the Father, and which Son,
therefore, they did not scruple to call without beginning, like the
Father, and cd-eternal with the Father, because that reason or
word, which the Father, when he pleased, put forth fis a personal

* See Atravab. Dd Srnod. § 16. torn. L pp. 729, 80.
' ATHAffA». De Synoo- ^ 27. torn, i- p. 742:

* And inthif loWer wdm they were xuoi by the Ariant* See ATOiirAS. De
Synod. § 16. torn. i. pp« 739, 80. tnd Biu De Trin. h. ^ IS. ooL 838.

I I

204 PATSISTtClt TRAOmm

I ) agenU was without beginning in the Father, and co^eternal with

I - him. But is it the orthodox doctrine 1 Is it not Semiarianism ?

The best defence of what these Fathers have advanced, as it
appears to me, woirtd be that they probablv thought that the
work of creation was one of the first acts of the &>dhead| and
therefore that' when they placed the generation of the Son pre-
cedently to the work of creation, they in 'efl^t made the Son
almost cosval with the Father.^ And perhaps we should not be
fieir from the truth in supposing this to be their meaning. This I
say is the best defence I can tee for their statements, and one
that brings them nearer to the orthodox view than any other
interpretatiob of their words, for the exposition of Bishop Bull
$eems to me to place them as far from orthodoxy as that of
Petavius.

The fact is, that, as it respects the original relation of the
Second Person of the Trinity to the: First, there was much diver-
sity of opinion in the primitive church. " It must be confessed,'^
says Dr. Waterland, "that the ' catholics fhemselVes were for
some time pretty much divided about the question of eternal
generation^ though there was no question about the eternal exis-
tence ; ffhethef the A§yi might be rightly said to be begotten
in respect of the state which was antecedent to the irptiAf o#«#
was the point in question, Athanasius areued strenuously for
it, (Contr. Arian. erat 4.) upon this principle, that whatever is
of another and referred to that other as his head (as the A«y«f
considered as such plainly was) may and ought to be stjied Son
and begotten ; besides, the Arians had objected that there would
be two unbesotten Persons if the A«y«f ever existed and was not
in the capacity of Son, and the church had never been used to
the language of two unbegottens. These considerations, besides
the testimonies of elder Fathers, vi^ho had adnnHtted eternal gene-
ration, weighed with the generality of the Catholics, and so
eternal generation came to be the more prevailing language f
and has prevailed ever since. There is nothing new in the
doctrine more than this^ the^Uinj^ that eternal generatipn which
others would have stylcid the eternal existence and relation of the

1 There are «ome obeerrattone of Hilary on thie point in bit Treatiae on the
Trinitj, (lib. 12. §§ 80— 45. col. 1137—36. ed. Ben.) which are remarkable.
** Natom semper ease," he lays, ** hoc eat, aenanm tempornm naicendo prscnrfere
neqae tnre^^^nttjr pft/ere aliqaandb foiaoenon natnnn." (^ 80.) *'Idcirco nnne
Sapientia natain ae ante aeculm decent anteriorem ae nop aolnm bis qus creata
aunt docet, sed ctemia coeCernani, prmparationi tcilicet cmii et discretion! sedis
Dei . . Perpetaaenim eimt^ma remm creandamm eat prnparatio." (4§ 89,
40.) ** Ommt horum prmparatU De$ etf coteterna,** (§ 40.) ** tJbi ante ^Bculum
eft nat^vitaa, infinite generationia stemitaa eat." (i 45.) See iflaa Cyrill. Alex.
Theetar. c 11. Tom. 5, Part L p. 87.

i

VO DIVINB INPORMAKT. 205

A»y#j to the Father, which at length amounts only to a differ*
ence in words and names,^^ (Waterland's Second Defence,
Works vol. iii. p. 396.) Mow in this passage (which appears to
me altogether a most extraordinary one) it is distinctly admitted
that there was no catholic consent on the important point,
whether the Second Person of the Sacred Trinity was begotten
of the Father, but that son>e contended for bis not being original-
ly begotten. And it is added, out of a desire to spare the
Fathers, the prudence of which may well be doubted, that the
dLflference was only a difference in words and names!

And as to their alleged agreement as to the eternal exbtenee,
this is no proof that they were of one mind in the matter. For
there are at least three opinions wrapped up in this phrase. One,
of those who hold the virtual coeternity of the Son as Son with
the Father ; another, of those who speak of his eternal existence,
because the reason or word, which became by the will of the Fa-
ther, a Person, existed always in the Father; another, of those
who mean by his eternal existence, his having been generated
only just before creation or time commenced. Nay, the phrase
might be even used by those who consider him to have originally
existed only potentially in the Father before his generation for
the work of creation, as in the passage already quoted from
Eusebius.

For the orthodox doctrine I would refer more particularly,
among the writers of this period, to Dionysius of Alexandria,
who seems to me to have given in a passage quoted by Atha-
nasius (however he may have expressed himself elsewhere) the
best and clearest statement of it; and such is the opinion of
Athanasius, to whom thiefly we are indebted for the fragments
that remain of this author, and from whom I extract the follow-
ing passage.

" He [i. e. Dionysius] after other remarks writes thus; — There
never was a time when God was not a Father. And in what
follows he acknowledges that Christ always existed, being reason
and wisdom and power ; for it was not the case that God, being
barren of thes^, afterwards produced a Son, but he is called a
Son because he is not self-existent, but has bis being from the
Father. And shortly after he says again, concerning the same
matter ; — But being the effulgence of eternal light, he is him-
self also altogether eternal ; for the light existmg always, it is
manifest that the effulgence always exists; for in this it is
known that it is light, namely in its shining, and light cannot
but be effulgent. For let us come again to examples; if there
is the Sun, there is light, there is day ; if there is neither o(
these, the Sun also must be far absent If, therefore, the Sun
was eternal, the day also would have no end. Bat now, this

▼OLk t

206 PATBISTICAL TRADITIOW

not being the case, when the Sun begins the Any begin!), and
when the Sun ceases the day ceases. ^uC Goil is elenial light,
that never had a beginning, nnd will never have an end. There-
fore the effulgence ia eternally manifested and present with him,
witbout beginning, and e/em<i//y^eraera/e^ .... And again.
Therefore the Father being eternal, the Son is eternal, being
light of light For where there is a parent there is also a child ;
and if there were no child, how and of whom could he be a

parent? But hotb exist, and exist always Again he

says; — But the Son alone always co-existing with the Father,
and filled with him who exists essentially, exists also himself
essentially, being of the Father.'"

The difference between these passages and thgse which we
have just been conddering, is apparent. Here the generation
of the Son as Bon, and a person, is made virtually coeval
with the existence of the Father ; and his virtual co-eternity
with the Father is grounded upon his eternal generation, whereas
the writers above quoted place his generation just previous to
the work of creation ; and thoueh they speak of a previous ex-
istence, ground (hat existence only upon the Father's having al-
idaed with reason, to which reason he gave, when
the purpose of creation, a personal existence,
'arned by Dionysios against conceiving of this ge-
' any time had elapsed before God became a Fa-
. by generation is meant, that the second Person of
as derived from the first, and derived only as the
id from the Sun, so that as the Sun and light are
also are the Father and Son. It is true that the
same metaphor is used by the writers of whom we have spoken
before, but it is not similarly applied, for Dionysius illustrates
the generation of the Son by it, with reference to the time of
that generation, (which is the point now in question), whereas
both Bishop Bull and Dr. WateHand allow that the generation

1 I^ow . . itA np*. ohm- Oii y«f mmi Qmt his n TnTtt. uu ittm atti m tn(
i?»c, Mimr Xjinw Wiu, i.ifyt)iiit± luu ffsjMu uuiuttfitr cu yup tn mmn tyinum i
em irra trajimarvrt, «»' trj fit rtf' ioi-m t uiV> kaa' u -roi; nt/tpoi t^ti n uu.
KdU jurr' tt^y* ^lAn mtt tui mvru/ pirn' a^nu/yarf^vi A air frra^ aj^jou, wurtmt tumtvtaf
tijitt i^T/r tmt yAfi tut TV/ frrott J^or *f tnit OMi tq a:Tnry^ffyA- ttuttt y^ jcaj d«
r*~ tf^l TV ^ttvfygLi^vr powru, jwj fat ov /vfata fAM fAr'^ar tffau. vAt.tr ynt tkBirfitr en
tA rattaJuyfia/T^ if w^n i\ntt orra tu/yn, tff^a ifA^a.' n TsJoifoflt fuii* trttj wokti y* Su
uu irs^iu •JJti u far to aVitc e auw, ^tT«BJ^pc u » uu ■ '("f- nip *, » ya* wtb,
«^«^»» Tt nitam, nai ■raoa/twou, waMnai, i tt yt ©t« UMioi WTi tat, wn a^afanr

•jtHS . . . Ku ai^H . . . tnat «ir aMutat rw Tivtfm, aanm > mk •rri, »» •> *aTK an'
«Tse ya* ^sfmc, wt< aju immf. uS^fa tvaur », *•( aju Tott aai itra.tai ytmt ; «*.»'
urn t^f aaiufir am. ... . iraxirftrt pvtcA i uocaurvmr iw ItaTu, xturini sirrte
atjiptufanc.inu iivniif^aiaattvn»ttK. Athabai. Da SenlenL l)ioD;i. ( IS,
torn. i. pp. S53, 4.

HO Dmm IXFOSHAXT. SOT

of which these writers speak was a temporal generation for the
purpose of creation; and that generation those writers identify
with the donation of personality to the Son, and his becoming a
Son ; and they apply this metaphor only to show the intimate
connexion between the Father and Son upon that generation;
and that notwithstanding they were called Father and Son as
distinct persons, they were not more separated than a ray of the
Sun is from the Sun. As Hippolytus, after speaking of the
temporal generation, says, " And thus there was present to him
[i. e. the Father] another. But when I say another, I do not
mean two Gods, but as light from light, or as water from a
fountain, or as a ray from the Sun." (See p. 199 above).
This is a different application of the metaphor, or at least an
application not equally comprehensive with that made by Di-
onysius, and not including the point now in question. The same
application of it is made by Lactantius,* who, as we shall here-
after show, did not hold the co-eternity of the Son with the
Father.

This passage of Dionysius is particularly valuable, because it
is sufficiently full to render it impossible to explain it away. The
incorrect use of orthodox terms makes it often impossible to rely
opon the testimony of particular passages; for, U
to be a proof, it is necessary to show, by some ot
the same author, in what sense the terms used w<
which it is not always possible to do. And hi
great difficulty in ascertaining with any certainty,
in proving to others, what were the sentiments oi
Not to say that there is every appearance with so
self-contradic tion .

It is unnecessary here to add further testimonies, because my
object is only to show that there was not an agreement in the
Fathers of this period on the point.

Moreover, there are others whose statements are still further
removed from the orthodox doctrine, respecting the Second Person
in the Sacred Trinity.

And first let us take Tertullian, with respect to whom it
cannot be denied that he has spoken in a way which it is im-
possible completely to reconcile with the orthodox doctrine on
this subject For instance, he says that " the Father is the
whole substance, but the Son a derivation and portion of the
whole, as he himself professes, ' For the Father is greater thHn
I.' "■ No orthodox person will say that this is correct language.

1 Inilil. lih. 4. e, SS. p. 330. ad. Cant. ISSS.
■ Piler enim (oU lotMlinliiMti filius Tiro ileri*atia
proOtetut, Quia Pilar m«jor ms nL Ad*. Pru. e. ii

2QS PATBIStlCAX TRADinOH

True, when we recollect that certain omtroversies had not been
raised in the Church at this time, we may find an apology for it,
but this is no help to the theory of our opponents.

But there are still more objectionable passages. How, I would
ask, are we to understand the following passage? "God is a
Father and God is a Judge, but He was not always a Father and
a Judge because always God. For he could neither be a Father
before there was a Son, nor a Judge before there was an offence.
JBui there was a time when there was neither an offence nor
a Sonr^

At the same time it would be doing an injustice to him not to
state, what his views are on this point, more fully than this nega«
five statement conveys to us, as they are not properjy Arian,
though far from orthodox. Thus, then, he speaks on this matter
in his Treatise against Praxeas.

** That this cannot be true, I am led to think by other argu«
ments derived from the very constitulion of the Godhead, as it
existed before the world up to the generation of the Son.^ For
before all things God was alone, his own world and place and
everything. But alone, because besides him nothing else existed
out of him. But he was not even then alone, for he had with
him that which he had in h]m3elf, that is his reason. For God is
rational (rationalis), and reason is in him at 6rst, and thus from
him are all things. Which reason is his intelligence (sensus).
Thi? the Greeks call>«y»<, which we express also by sermo. And
consequently it is usual with us, by a translation not altogether
accurate, to say that M^ JVord (sermonem) was in the beginning
with God, when it is more accordant with the real state of the
case that reason (rationem) should be considered more antient
(antiquiorem) ; because God had not a Word (non sermonalis)
from the beginning, but God had reason even before the begin-
ning ; and because the very Word itself consisting of reason, ex-
hibits that pre-existent (priorem) reason as its substance. Yet
even so it makes no difference. For although God had not yet

1 Et pater Deas est et jadex Deat est ; non tamen ideo pater et judex semper,
quia Deus semper. Nam nee pater potuit esse ante filium nee judex ante delictum.
Fuit autem tempus cum et delictum et Alius non fuit. Adv. Hermof^. c. 8. p.
834. Bishop Bull's explanation of this may be seen in his Def. Fid. Nic. iii.
10. 2. et seq. He thinks that Tertullian spoke deceitfully, to answer the purpose
of his argument, and used the word Son as applying only to that slate which
succeeded his coming forth from the Father for the creation of the world. But
surely this is too much like special pleading. And even were it so, it is destruc-
tive of our opponents' notions, if the Fathers would thus speak deceitfully for the
sake of their argument ; which, however, after the ingenuous confessions of Je-
rome, I will not <?eny that they sometimes did.

t Hoc ut fir mum non sit, alia me argumenta deducunt ab ipsa Dei dispositione,
qua fuit ante mundi constitutionem, adusque filii generationem. Adv. Prax. c. 5.

mo DIVINB INFOBK ANT. 209

sent forth his Word, he nevertheless had it with and in his own
reason within himself, by tacitly thinking and contriving with
himself those things which he was shortly about to give utterance
to by the VVord. For thinking and contriving with his reason,
he made that reason his Word, which by his Word he made use
of." He then proceeds to illustrate this by referring to the ex-
ample of man, in whom, he says, the word thought is in a man-
ner a second entity within him, and the word itself, when utter-
ed, a different entity from him.* And he adds,^ " How much
more fully, then, does this take place in God, of whom you also
are considered the image and similitude, that he should have
reason in himself even when silent, and in reason a word (sernKh
nem) ? I might, therefore, not incorrectly have laidlt down, that
God, even then before the formation of the universe, was not
alone, having in hiipself reason, and in reason a word which he
might make second from himself by causing them to act one
upon the other.* This power and this distribution (dispositio) of
the Divine intelligence is also spoken of in Scripture by the name
of Wisdom. For what is wiser than the reason or word of God ?
Hear, therefore. Wisdom speaking as one who was made the
second person. First, ' The Lord created me the b^inning of
ways towards hb works, before he made the earth, before the
mountains were placed ; before all the hills he be^ot me ;' to wit,
forming and begetting in his own intelligence. Then take notice
of Wisdom standing by at the moment of separation (assistentem
ipsa separatione'), ' When, saith Wisdom, he was preparing the
heavens I was present with him, Sic.^ For when God desired to
give their form and substance to those things which with the
reason and word of wisdom he had contrived within himself, he
first produced (protulit) the word itself, having in itself its com-
ponent parts, reason and wisdom, that all things might be made
bv that by which they were thought out and contrived, aye and
already made as far as they could be in the Divine intelligence.
For this was wanting to them, that they should be openly re-
cognized and pojtsessed in their forms and substances. Then,
therefore, the Word itself also received its form and beauty,
sound and speech, when God saith, ' Let there be light' This is
the perfect nativity of the Word as it proceeds from God;*

I Secundas qnodammodo in te att termo, per qaem loqaeris cogitando et per
quern cogitas loqaendo, Ipae eermo alias eat Adv* Pral* c 5.

s In ratione aermonem qaem aecundam a ae fbceret agitando intra se. Tb. c. 6.

' The word teparatio, if Tertullian'a, maat have been need hastily here by him,
a« in cc. 8, 9, he denies that there is any tQparati* between the Father and Son.
He uses elsewhere the word prolafio in this connexion. I suspect the trae read-
ing it, prmparatione,

* H®c est natifitaa perfecta aermonia, dam ex Deo procedit* lb. c 7.

s*

SIO rlTBtsncix TBADinoir

beiDg formed by him first for thought in the name of vruAom,
'The Lord made me the beginDing of his wRys;' then begotten
to bring to pass the purposed work (ad eSectum), " When be was
preparing the heavens I was present with him.* '"

Again, when reasoning with Hermogenes against the eternity
of matter, he says, — " Finally, when Ae [God] perceived toia-
dom to be necessary for the works of (he world, he immedi-
ately forms and generates it in himself. ' The Lord, aaith
'wisdom, made me the Wginning of his ways, <kc.' Therefore
let Hermogenes acknowledge that the wisdom of God was there-
fore said to be born and formed lest we should believe anything
to be without generation or creation but God alone. For if
within the Lord that which was from him and in him, was not
wilhoul beginning, namely, his wisdom, which was born and
made from the time from which it began to be roused in the
intelligence of God to arrange the works of the world; much
more is it impossible for anything to have been without a b^in-
Ding which was out of the Lord.'"

Here then, it appears, that Tertutlian, though he denied the
eternal generation of the Word or Son, even in his character as
Wisdom, entertained the notion of the Word having been as it
were in an embryo state of existence in the Father, that is, in his
reason, before bis generation. But then this is, in fact, merely
the existence of the essence, not the existence of the Son as a
Person. For if the Son did not exist as Son, he did not exist as
a Person, for the Second Person in the Trinity exists by genera-
tion from the Father, and is a Son as soon as he is a Person.
Indeed it is evident, from other passages, that TertuUian cod-
' commence upon the generation of the Son.
erylhiiig which proceeds from anything is
d of that from which it proceeds, but is not
ire there is a second, there are two, and
d, there are three; for the third is the Spirit
)n."' And again he says elsewhere, " We

•p. 60S, 3.

im [i- c. Snphiam] •cnait *d open mnndi, ataiim a

JQ Kmetipiu. Domina*, inqoit, coniliJit mi iniuum

IB ; »te Hcula fundiiil ma, priu* qaam facnct larnm ;

■renlur ; anta omnei inlem calira genenvil me; prior

AgDoKBL BrgD Hsrmogtnei idcirco etiam Sophiaoi

[EiJicari nc qaid ionalnni at iDeoDdituin pmler aolgin

niiB inln Uaminum quod ei ipao at In ipao fuit. aJD*

;ilicet ipmua, exinde Data et condilB ex qao in itniu

JM ad epera nunrlj diipanenda erpit agitari : didIIo migla nan capit aine iaiiio

quicqaam fuiwe quod eiln Daminum faatit. Ad*. Hermog. c. LB. p. 2.19.

s Omne quod prodil ei diqua ucundum ill ejui necrH« (at da q>iD prmlil, non
UmcD cat aepanlum. Secundua aulaio ubi eat, duo aunt, el terlina ubi cat, tiM
■uni ; tcriiui eniu eat 8[Hritiu * Deo et Fifio. Tertnll. tdT. Prax. c. B.

Ro DiTim nfroHiuifT. 311

assert two, Father and Son, flnd now three with the Hdj Spirit,
according to the ratio of oeconom;^ which makes a plurality of
persons." '

This last passage reminds me of the observation previously
made respecting the third summary of the faith given by Tertuf-
liati, where, as it appeared to me, there was a recc^nition of the
notion that formed the heresy of Marcellus, viz. that the triper-
sonality of the Godhead, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, wai
only a dispensational or ceconomicnl and temporary mode of ex-
istence of the Godhead, for it was the notion of Marcellus that
the Godhead was extended and contracted according to different
dispensations (tntn/uiu). Had the passage in that summary stood
alone, one might have been contented to affix a different idea to
the words, hut in this passage there is clearly a similar state-
ment. And in the following the notion is still more fully express-
ed. " Observe, therefore, lest you rather destroy the monarchy
[of God] who overturn its arrangement and dispensation, ap-
pointed in as many names as Gad plrased. But it so far re-
mains in its own state, though a Trinity be introduced, that
it even has to be restored to the Father by the Son; as the Apos-
tle writes concerning the last end, ' when he shall have delivered
up the kingdom to God even the Father.' "' Here he evident-
ly supposes that there might have been, if the Father had so
willed it, more than three persons in the Godhead, and that the
tripersonal state as now existing was not from all eternity, and
was only an (economical state.

However, be this as it may, his statements respecting the Son
are clearly incorrect.

The reader will observe also that I am not here
Tertullian incorrect views on the ground of sta
admit of an orthodox interpretation, or which maj
to orthodoxy by a comparison with other passages
though in themselves not the most tit expressiont
for instance has done) but limit my remarks to

1 DacM quidcm drfinimn* Pitrem et Ftliam, et jim Irei CD
Vecondam ralianern cEconomin qum facit nvmemm. AdT. Pi
See sIm c 16. And obwne Iha rollotting ; — Quseunque argt
ni* Tuii, illam dico penoniin, rt illi nonieD Glii vinJico. Adi.

> Viile etgo ne lu poliua monBrchiain deairuii, qui dispoaili

Pilii M Filio. Siqiiidem Apottolu* Kribit de allima fine i]Duin irulidsril regnnin
Den CL Patri. AdT. Prei. c. 4. p. fi02. Obaerte alio Iha faHnwing ;— Videmur
[vidamus] igllar non ah««a monarchiB filium, etai hodis spud lilium eat ; quia
el in (UD aiaiu eat apud lillum, et cuni auo alatu reatilualur Patri * filia. Ita cam
nemo faoc nomine dsntruat, *i Blium admitlal, cui el traditam eam a Patre et ■
^uu quandoque rcatilaaiidain Palii ceuilat. Adi, Piax c. 4. p< SOS.

212 PATBXSnCAL TRADinOIl

which his views appear (as far as I am able to iudge) to have
been incorrect His view appears to have been that the produc-
tion of the. Word or Son is an act which must have been per-
formed by one already in existence^ and therefore that reason
only, and not the Word or Son^ can be said to be co-eternal with
the Father. There is an important difference^ however, between
his view and that of the Arians, because they spoke of the genera-
tion of the Son as a creation, and of the Son as being made from
that which was not (#{ •vk •vti^*), and of a different essence to the
Father, which is contrary to the views inculcated by Tertullian.
There are perhaps other remarks in these subtile lucubrations of
Tertullian, upon which, if inclined to say all that might be said,
one might be disposed to offer an observation, but some allowance
must be made for the imperfection of human language when ap-
plied to such mysteries. However there can be no doubt that
the language of Tertullian savoured more of Platonism than
Apostolicity; nor is this any new idea, for thus speaks Gennadius
of the fifth century, ''Nihil ex Trinitatis essentia ad creatura-
rum naturam deductum, ut Plato et Tertullianus."^ And bow,
indeed, can any author be depended upon of whom it is confessed
by his most strenuous defenders, that he argued deceitfully, and
cared little what he said of God in nfutation of his oppo*
nent ?»

Bishop Bull has laboured hard to bring him near orthodoxy,
though apparently giving up the hope of effecting more than an
approximation. His view and the difficulties under which it la-
bours may be seen in the following passage of Dr. Waterland, in
which it is described. <' Tertullian is known to have dis-
tinguished between ratio and sermOf both of them names of the
selfsame A*r«$, considered at different times under different ca-
pacities ; first, as silent and unoperating, alone with the Father ;
afterwards proceeding or going forth from the Father, to operate
in the creation. With this procession he supposes^ as do many
OTHERS, the Sonship properly to commence. So that though
the A«70f had always existed, yet he became a Son in time, and
in this sense there was a time when the Father bad no Son."
(Second Def. Works, vol. iii. p. 101.) Consequently, if this view
is correct, the generation of the Son from the Father was in fact
not a generation but a mere procession from the Father of one
who exbted before as a Person, an active and intelligent personal
agent, within him, and therefore the wQrds generation and Son
are used without any proper meaning, and the Second Person in

1 De eccipff. dogmat c. 4. Tntcr. Op. Augoit ed. Den. torn. 8 tpp. col. 76.
s Bull Def. Fid. Nic.iU. 10.4.

KO DITINB inFOSMAKT* S18

the Trinity was not generated by the First Is this orthodox
doctrine ?*

J proceed to Novatian, who says, — ** He therefore, [i. e. the
Son,] when the Father pleased^ proceeded from the Father ;
and he who was in the Father, proceeded from the Father ; and
he who was in the Father, as he was from the Father, was af-
terwards with the Father* because he proceeded from the Father ;
namely, that Divine Subsistence, whose name is the Word, by
which all things were made, and without which nothing was
made. For all things are after him, because they are by him ;
and he is before all things, since all things were made by him;
who proceeded from him by whose will all things were made ;
God, namely, proceeding from God, making a second persons
but not depriving the Father of being the only God."*

He has also a still more objectionable passage, in which he has
undeniably given the unorthodox interpretation to Phil. ii. 7.
" Who bein^ in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God." He says, — " Nevertheless this very thing that
he should be both God and Lord of all things, and God, after the
form of God the Father, he obtained from his Father, being born

1 Bishop BqII supposes that when the Arians at the Council of Nice affirmed
of the Son that he was not before he was begotten, they meant to oppose the no-
tion advanced as he thinks, by some at that time, who, while they held a tempo-
ral generation for the purposes of creation, from which the Second Person of the
Trinity was called in Scripture the Son of God, and the first-begotten, maintained
also that he existed before by an eternal generation from the Father, and that
many of the catholics at Nice understanding the term begotten as used by the
Arians to refer to that temporal generation, meant to maintain, in their condem-
nation of the Arians, that he was before he was thus begotten. (Def. fid. Nic. iii. 9.
2.) But this is clearly disproved by the mode of arguing adopted by the Arians,
which shows that they spoke of the original generation of the Son from the Father,
without particular reference to such views. (See Athanaa, De Synod. § 16. torn,
l.p. 729. Hilar. De Trin. lib. zii^ Basil, adv. £unom. lib. 2.) Whether there
were any at Nice who held the notion of a temporal generation for the purpose
of creation as distinguished from the eternal generation, is a point respecting
which we have not the smallest evidence. But certainly Hilary in his repliea
to the. Arians treeta the question as one relating to the original generation of Ae
Son, (De Trin. lib. 12,) and particularly opposes any supposition that the catho-
lics in condemning the Arian saying, ** be was not before he was begotten,"
meant to affirm that he wab before he was begotten, and contends against it only
on the ground of its seeming to impugn the eternity of the Son. (lb. ^§ 30, 31.
col. 1127,8.)

8 Hie ergo quando Pater voluit proceasit ez Patre ; et qui in Patre fuit prooesait
ez Patre ; et qui in Patre fuit. quia ez Patre fuit, cum Patre postmodum fait,
quia ez Patre proceasit ; Substantia scilicet ilia divina, cujus nomen est Verbum,
per quod facta sunt omnia, et sine quo factum est nihil. Omnia enim post ipsnm
sunt quia per ipsum sunt et merito ipse est ante omnia, quando per ilium facta
sunt omnia, qui proceasit ez eo ex cujus voluntate facta sunt omnia : Deua utique
procedens ez Deo secundam personam efficiens, sed'non eripiens illud Patri quod
Unas est Deus. Notatiav. De Trin. c 31. Apud Tertull. Op. Col. Agripp.
1617. p. 743.

214 PATBItnCAL TBADinoIl

and brought forth of hinru Although, therefore, he was in the
form of God, [dod est rapiDam arbitratus sequaleiii se esse Deo;
which, from the remarks that follow, he must have translated, as
some others have done, to this effect ;] he did not think it fell to
bis lot to be equal with God. For although he remembered that
he was Grod of God the Father, he never either compared "or
likened himself to God the Father, repiembering that he was of
his own Father, and that he possessed existence because the Fa*
t her had given it. Hence, then, both before his incarnation,
and after his assumption of a body, nay, moreover, after the resur-
rection itself, he rendered, and still renders, all obedience to the
Father in all things. From which it Appears that he never con-
templated that any svch divinity fell to his lot, as that he
should equal himse(fto God the Father ; nay, on the contrary,
being obedient and subject to all his commands and will, he was
content to take upon himself the form of a servant, &c."^ And
again ; — " He is, therefore, God ; but begotten for this very pur-
pose, that he might be God. He is also Lord, but born of the
Father for this very purpose, that he might be Lord."* Accord-
ing to him, therefore, he was not co-eternal with the Father as
God ; for he holds his generation, that generation by which he
was made a second person, to have been '* when the Father
pleased ;" which was, when the work of creation was to be per-
formed ; and he distinctly states his divinity to be different to that
of the Father.

I must say that I know not what advantage the orthodox
cause can gain, by claiming the writer of these remarks as on
its side. It appears to me impossible to explain these expres-
sions as applying only to an inequality in the order of existence
in the Persons of the Godhead; and it is somewhat remarkable
that the passage in which he interprets Phil. ii. 7, at least that
part of it which is objectionable, has usually been passed over

1 Hoc iptam tamen a Patre proprio coniecatas, at omDiam et Deas eaaet et
Dominus esaet, et Deua'ad formam Dei Patria ex ipso genitua atqoe protataa.
Hie ergo quamvis esaet in forma Dei non est rapinam arbitrator sqaalem se Deo
esse. Quamvis e'nim se ex Deo Patre Deam esse meminisset, nanqaam se Deo
Patri aut comparavit aut contulit, memor se esse ex suo Patre, et hoc ipsam, qaod
est, habere se, quia Pater dedisset ' Inde denique et ante camis assumptionem,
sed et post assamptionem corporis, post ipsam prsterea resurrectionera, omnem
Patri in omnibus rebus obedientiam prestitit pariter ac prsstat. Ex quo probatur
nunquam arbitratum ilium esse rapinam quandam divinitatem, ut squaret se Pa-
tri Deo : quinimo contra omni ipsius imperio et voluntati obedieos atque sufa^ctus
etiam ut formam aerri susciperet conteotus fuit, dbc. Notat. De Trin. c. 17.
p. 734.

s Est ergo Deus, sed in hoc ipsam genitus at easet Deus. Est et Dominos,
sed in hoc ipsam natus ex Patre ut easet Dominos. c. 81.

wo DIVINE IXFORMAIfT. 115

by those who have attempted to vindicate this treatise as or-
thodox.

How, moreover, are we to reconcile with the orthodox doctrine
those words of Methodius, where he calls the Son *' the most
ancient of aeons, and the first of Archangels V*^

And as to Lactantius, there can be no question about the
matter, with a writer who can speak thus. — " Since God was
most wbe in designing, and most skilful in creating, before he
commenced the creation of the world ; since in him was the
fountain of full and perfect good, as it is always; in order that
from that good a stream might arise and flow widely abroad, he
produced a Spirit similar to himself, who was endued with the
qualities of Grod the Father. And how he did that, we shall en-
deavor to teach in the fourth book. Then he made another, in

whom the disposition of the divine original did not remain

Him the Greeks call ^«/9«A«r [devil,] we cr«mtno/or [the ac-
cuser] .... God, therefore, on commencing the fabric of the
world, set that first and greatest Son over the whole work ; and
made use of him as at once his counsellor and artificer in plan-
Dfing, beautifying, and perfecting things ; because he is perfect
in forethought, and reason, and power."*

More may be found in him elsewhere to the same effect' It
is useless to attempt to reconcile such statements with the ortho-
dox doctrine, and so Bbhop Bull admits.

Nay, what says Dr. Cave, who, perhaps, was as well entitled
as any one to give a judgment in the case? — " The errors which
are observable in his writings concerning the divinity and eternal
existence of the Son, concerning the pre-exbtence of souls and a
future state after this life, concerning the end of the worlds and
the thousand years rei^n, concerning the advent of Elias to turn
many to the worship of God, and other points concerning which
he has spoken obscurely, incautiously, and sometimes dangerously,
will be excused by candid observers on account o(the ignorance
of the age in which he lived about these things^ the abstruse

1 Tor vrftrfiurcim <ra»r *tmm »xi ir^mref rm Apyo^ytKUft. Mbtboo. CoiiTiT. dc-
cem virg. oral. da. ^ 4. Bibl. Patr. ed. OallandT torn. iii. p. 686.

8 Cam eiset Deas ad ezcogitandum pradentissimus, ad faciendum toIerUsfi"
mas, auteqoam ordiretar hoc opas mandi : quoniam pleni et consammati boni
fons in ipso erat, «icot est semper* at ab eo bono tanqaam rivas oriretar longe-
qoe proflueret, prodozit similem soi spiritum, qui esset virtutibas Dei Patris pn»-
ditus. Qnomodo aatem id lecerit, in quarto libro docere conabimur. Beinde
fecit alteram in qao indoles divins stirpis non permansit .... Hanc . . .

Gnsci/M^xof appellant, nos crirainatorem Tocamus Ezorsns igitar Peas

fabricam mundi illam primam et maximum filium prefecit operi uniterso, eoqae
simol et consiliatore osas est, et artifice, in excogitandis, omandis, perficiendisque
rebus, qaoniam b et procidentia et ratione et potestate perfectus est. Lactabt*
Instit lib. %. c 8. ed. Cant 1686. p' 84.

> See Instit. lib. !▼. cc 6, dtc

216 PATRI8TICAL TRADITIOll

nature of the doctrines not yet sufficiently clearly explained hy
theologians, nor defined by conciliar determinations, and in which
he had very many of the Fathers qf the preceding ages in
agreement with him.^^^ Similar remarks respecting the Ante-
Micene Fathers are made by the learned Huetius in his Origen-
iana.'

And to these I need hardly add the name of the still more
learned Petavius. I shall not, indeed, undertake to defend all
the observations made by him on this subject, and believe that
bis censures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers may have been too
general, but I must also express my conviction that there is too
much ground for many of bis remarks, (in which, indeed, he is
borne out by many other learned men,) and that it will be quite
time enough for Mr. Newman to attack him as having " shown
that be'would rather prove the early Confessors and martyrs to
be heterodox, than that they should exist as a court of appeal
from the decisions of his own church," and having '^ sacrificed
without remorse Justin, (Slc., and their brethren to the maintenance
of the infallibility of Rome/' (p. 74.) when he has exhibited one
hundredth part of Petavius's ability, and learning, and acquaint-
ance with the Fathers. What possible advantage, moreover,
could the Romish cause gain by his showing that many of the
antient Fathers were unorthodox, when Rome vehemently pro-
fesses to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers, and to adhere to those traditions which
are to be found in their writings? Surely Mr. Newman must see
that a proof of the errors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is anything
but a proof of the infallibiliCy of one who professes to follow them.
Nor is there any foundation for the somewhat similar insinuations
of Bishop Bull. It is evident, indeed^ that the Romish cause is on
the whole as much injured by the proof of such a fact as that of
our opponents, for it utterly overthrows the hypothesis upon which
their whole system rests, namely, that there was a development
of the truth as delivered in the oral teaching of the Apostles, and
fullerjhan what we find in the Scriptures, handed down by all
the catholic Fathers from the time of the Apostles.

I will add one witness more, and that shall be one of the best
of our opponents' own referees, — Bishop Stillingfleet.

" Suppose," says the Bishop, " the question be not concerning
the express articles of this rule of faith, but concerning the sense
and meaning of them, how then are we to find out the consent of
antiquity t For they might all agree in the words, and yet have

1 Cave Hist Liter, sab nom. ** Lactantinfl,'' vol. i. p. 16S. See also his Arti*
des on Origen and Eusebios.
8 Lib. ii. q. 3. %S 10, 14 and S5. Li Op. Orig. ed. Beo. torn. !▼.

HO Divm IVfdBXAXT« 217

n different notion of the things. Ji$ Petaviu^ at large proves^
(Dogm. Theol. torn. ii. in Prsef.) that there was an antient tradi-
tion for the 9ubatanee of the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet fie
cor\fes8es that most of the writers of the antient church did
differ in their esepHcation of it from that which was only
allowed by the Council of Nice. •And he grants^ (lib. i. c 8. §
2.) that Jirius d^djollow the opinion of many of the antients
in the main qfhis doctrines, who v>ere guilty of the same error
that he was before the matter was thoroughly discussed*
Here new arises the greatest difficulty to me in this point of
tradition ; the useAtlnen of it I am told is for explaining the sense
of Scripture ; but there begins a controversy in the church about
the explication of the doctrine of the Trinity ; I desire to know
whether Vincentius his rules will help us here 1 It is pleaded by
S. Hierome> (ApoL c. Ruffin. lib. iL) and others, ' That the writers
o( the Church might err in this matter, dr speak unwarily in it
before the matter came to be thoroughly discussed;' If so, how

COMBS TH£ TBSTIICONT or BftBOlfBOOS OR UN WART WRITERS TO BS
THE OSRTAllf MEANS OF QIVIN O THE SEHSE OF SCRIPTURE ? Apd iO

most of the controversies^f the Church, this way hath been used
to take off the testimony of persons who writ before the contro*
versy began,.and spake differently of the matter in debate. I
do not deny the truth of the allegation in behalf of those persons,
but to my understanding it plainly shows the incompetency
qf tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture^ when
that tradition is to be taken from the xoriters of the foregoing
€iges ; and if this had been the only way of confuting Arius, it is
a great question how he could ever have been condemned if
Petavius or S. Hierome say true."^

Moreover, if we are bound to suppose that all the Ante-
Nicene Fathers nominallv belonging to the catholic church were
opposed to the views of Arius, how is it that all the bishops of
the church did not oppose his heresy when first promulgated,
which we find was far from being the case ?* And, although the
favourers of his views were in a very inconriderable minority at
Nice, yet in a very few years we find them the triumphant
party. Views quite as unorthodox were, as we have seen, pro>
mulgated by Origen without any recorded judgnoent, as far as
we Know, of the church of his time and long after against thenu
In fact, whatever errors may have arisen in the church, such an

1 ABfw«r to teverml Treat pp. 245, 6. Second edition 1674. Nor aie bit
•tttements in hie eubfequent work on the doctrine of the Trinitj contradietory
to these remarks, for they are made with reference to those who looked apoa
Christ as a mere man, and do not assert any consent of Fathers for the fall or*
thodox doctrine of the Trinity againat Ariaa or Bemiarian errors.

t See Bosomaa. Hist. Ub. L c 14.

VOL.1. T

fl8 PAvmriCAL VKAomofr

assembly as a €len«rttl Cotineil wonM hardly baine been tolerated
before^ and when error was patronized by some able and influ*
ential bithop> as for iastanoe Origen, a condemnation even in
a local Council was hardly to be expected. For the judgment
at Nice we am indebted entirely to the interference of Con*
stantine, who hoped by that means to put an end to the dispute.
And much are we indebted to the first Christian Emperor, for
providing us with such a confirmation of the orthodox faith as
18' to be found in the recorded judgment, given at Nice, of so
many learned and venerable prelates from all parts of the work).
But that all the prelates and doctors of the nbminal Christian
church for the three preceding centuries were precisely of the
sentiments of the majority of this Council^ is a supposition ut-
terly unnecessary for any good purpose, itnprobable' in theory^,
and contradicted by facts.

, In selecting the extracts given above from the Ante^Nicene
Fathers, I have endeavored to view the matter with an impartial
eyev and to give those passages which should bring before the
reader the real views of those Fathers on the point in question.
Had it been my object merelv to make out a case against them,
it would have been easy to have made the charge appear still
heavier. Nay, I will not hesitate to say, that without fully con-
sidering the circumstances of the times, and carefully comparing
their expressions one with another, so as to judge from them as
a whole, as far as we can, what their views really were, it would
be impossible not to suppose them to have fallen more deeply
into error than is here laid to their charge. And hence it is
that such a plausible case has oflten been made out against them^
and even by those who were themselves oil the orthodox side.
But I readily admit, that many such charges have been made
without a sufficient foundation.

As it respects many of the passages quoted against them, though
file words may be different to those which were afterwards used
«n the subject, and the expressions be even such as were after-
wards carefully avoided by the orthodox, when it was found how
they were wrested by heretics to an unorthodox nieaning, yet the
meaning of those ^ho used them must be judged of by their gene>-
ral doctrine on the subject And further with respect to many
otfiers, there is a misunderstanding in the case arising from men
ftot fully comprehending the true nature of the orthodox doctrine.
For instance, when the early Fathers speak of the Son minister-
ing to the Father in the creation of the world, (using such words
as vitovfytif,) it is sometimes intimated that this is opposed to that
doctrine^ whereas it is capable of a very orthodox interpretation*
though, in after times, such phrases might be rejected by some
from the use which had been made of them by heretics. For as

2fO iTCVJQIS KIBtBKAian 210

the Father is the Foiuitain>of the Godhead^ and alene self-existent
aod uoderiv^, so ^very act of the Godhead niay be said to prO^
ceed origtnally from the Father^ and to be performed through
the ministration of the Son, who, as derived from the Father, may .
be said to minkter to the Father m the performance of the act)
as the stream dispeases the blessings derived from the fonntain,
(an imperfect but yet to a certain extent correct and useful si*
miiitude.) And as the essence of the stream is the same as that
of the fountain, and all the goodoesk, vhrtues^ and power residing
in the fountaia, are al^in the. stream, without any difierence or
inequality, so is it in the case of tlie Son compared with the Fa-
ther, But few deny that as it respects the source and orekr of
existence, the Father is prior to the Son. And according to this
diilerence in the order of their existence^ are we to contemplate
the acts of the Godhead. With the Father, as the Source of th^
Godhead, originate all things. Hence it is said by Origen, that
as it respects the Father, it would be said, all things were made
vw' mvfVi but as it respects the So», that all things were made
V «t;r«tf« And it would be unjust to accuse him of nrmking the
Son inferior to the Father by tliis, as it respects his essence.

I have already stated my belief that, as it respects (he divinity
of our Lord, against the Socinians, the testimony of the catholic
Fathers that remain to us is unanimous, and I think their wri-
tings render it highly probable that moa^ of them held the doc-
trine of his consubstantiality, and his being generated from the
Father as one of the same essence with him, and not as one
created by the Father. But I must add that i4 is impossible to
establish the latter point without a nice and laborious critical in-
vestigation of the works of the Fathers, and an accurate compa-
rison of the apparently discrepant stateaients oden to be met
with in the same Father, by which we may ascertain what in
all probability his views really were* And with respect to some
it is next to impossible to arrive at any certain conclusion, or at
least we must suppose that either their works have been altered^
or that their views were different at different times. Such is the
case with Origen, who was accused by many who lived near his
own time of having spoken of the Son erroneously. His ortho-
doxy, indeed, is a matter much disputed both in antient and mo-
dern times. And I must add, that in my humble judgment^ the
evidence against him overwhelmingly preponderates. And the
same must be said of Eusebius. And with respect to some of
them there is no proof to be adduced either on one side or the
other. And others must beyond doubt be given up.

What becomes then, I would ask^ of the notion i£ our oppo-
nents, that a correct report of the full orthodox doctrine in all
vital points, as delivered orally by the Apostles, was handed

1

9t0 rAminciJb nuMtioir

down (so far as the subject is touched vpOB) by all the cathdk
writers of the prinritive church? Instead of any such report*
we find that yery many of these writers spoke at least rkmI
unguardedly and incorrectly, as if they had imbibed error.
Did the Apostles speak so 7 If not, how can we learn what the
Apostles delivered from those who, eyen if their sentiments were
orthodox, mangled and misrepresented the tradition they had
received, so as to make their account of it look like error ?
Surely it is both unfair and unwise to boast of the consent of
all the Fathers as a necessary part of the rule of faith in vital
points, when the fact is, that if your reader goes to verify your
statements, so far from finding any such consentient delivery of
them, he finds many of these Fathers speaking, to say the least,
most unguardedly and incorrectly, and others undeniably unor-
thodox. .

And yet notwithstanding this, we are directed to this sup-
posed consent, — a consent founded, as far as it is obtainable,
upon a nice critical examination of apparently discrepant pas-
sages and incorrect and ambiguous statements,— «s the only
clear delivery of the fundamentals of the faith, the necessary
and infallible interpreter of the word of (rod*

For my own part, so far from thinking that there is in these
authors anything like a consentient delivery of the full ortho-
dox doctrine in fundamental points, I believe there would be
much danger in setting down one not well grounded in the faith
as delivered in the Holy Scriptures to learn the faith from these
authors; not from its not being delivered clearly in one or other of
them, but from its being delivered by most imperfectly, and by
others erroneously, and almost always mixed up with various
strange notions and conceits.

Moreover, whei'e we cantiot establish catholic consent for the
first three centuries we cannot establish it at all. The testi-
mony of even the Nicene Council could «/ most establish the
consent of that age for the doctrine ; and not I6ng after the
Arian doctrine was affirmed by a General Council, where there
were twice as many bishops present as were assembled at Nice.
And how happens it, by the way, that we hear nothing of this
latter Council, when the General Councils of the church are
enumerated 1 When Augustine was arguing with an Arian, he
admitted that his opponent's appeal to the latter Council would
be as good as his own to thai of Nice, and therefore that they
must go to some other quarter to decide the matter, and that
quarter was Scripture.^

It is quite true that large demands are made upon us for our

1 8m Aogaft. contr. Mtxim. lib. S. e. 14.

2fb tftytififi infoftHAim 221

belief that the Nieene Cotmcil and Athanasiufl claimed catholic
consent for the doctrine established at Nke, and decided every-
t/Ung by it; but with how little reasort I shall show hereafter.*
And if they had claimed it, their claim would have been a mere
claim, for proof of it they could not have. But the fact is that
tbey did not tmake aiiy such claim.

And this leads me to notice another fact which appears to me
oC considerable weight in this matter; Vi2. that the Fathers
of the fourth and succeeding centuries bad no such scruples
about calling in question the orthodoxy of earlier Fathers,
though they died in the communion of the church, as some have
now, which nevertheless tbey tnu$t have felt if they had enter-
tained this notion of catholic consent being part [of the rule of
faith. This is a fact, therefore, be it observed, which strongly
affects two points. For it not only indicates that there was n6
such consent as is fancied, among the Fathers of the first three
centuries, but also that the succeeding Fathers, who are appealed
to by our opponents as supporting their views of tradition, held
DO such notions. It appears to me a proof of the latter point
which it is utterly impossible to get rid of.

And now for the proof that they did so speak of some of the
earlier Fathers. With respect to Origei^, it will not be denied that
the orthodoxy of his views was almost universally denied by these
Fathers, and that Jerome, though originally taking his part, be-
came afterwards his violent accuser, which certamly looks but
ill for Origen's (iause. Nay, even Dionysiusof Alexandria, whom
we have quoted above, as havitig in one place expressed the ortho-
dox doctrine very clearly, is strongly reprehended by Basil and
Gennadiu^ on this head, notwithstanding that they must have
been well aware of his Letter in his own defence to Dionysius of
Rome, when called upon for an explanation of some of bis state-
ments, which indeed ia expressly noticed by Basil* Thus is he
spoken of by Basil ; " As it respects your inquiries concerning the
writings of Dionysius, they have reached us, and that in great
numbers. But we have them not at hand, and therefore have
XK>t sent them. But our opinion is this. We do not admire all
the writings of that man* And there are some which we alto-
gether disapprove. For I might almost say, that of that impious
heresy which is now so rife, fmean the Anomceaut he, as far at
we know, was the first that supplied the seeds. But I think that
the cause of this was not any error in his own views, but his
vehement desire to oppose Sabellius. I am therefore in the habit
of comparing him to a gardener straightening a young plant that

> See c. 10.

T^

tS9 PATmitTicAL nju>inoy

18 bent, and by drawing it back too mucb miwii^ tbe middle and
leading away the plant in tbe contrary direction. Sometbing
like this we find to have happened to this man. For opposing
vehemently the impiety of the Libyan, he was unconsciously car-
ried himself into an opposite error by his vehement opposition ;
and when it was sufficient for him to show that the Father and
Son were not the same subjectively^^ and thus to gain tbe victorv
against the blasphemer, he» that be might most clearly triumph
and gain more than a victory, not only lays down a distinction of
byoostases, but also a difference of essence, and degreesof power»
and diversity of glory •' So that it thus happen^, that be ex*
changed one error for another, and erred from correct doctrine.
Thus, then, he is inconsistent in bis writings; at one time taking
away the consubstantiality on account of him who used the term
improperly so as to destroy the hypostases, at another time ad-
mitting it in what be wrote in his own defence to his namesake.'
Moreover, concerning the Spirit also, he has uttered language bv
no means suitable to the Spirit, sep€irating it from that Ooa*
head that is to be worshipped, and numbering it among in*
ferior beings with created and ministrative nature.* Such is
this man."*

Such is the t^timony of Basil ; and Gennadius of Marseilles
calls him the fountain of the Arian heresy.* Can it be denied,
then, that even Dionysius of Alexandria wrote respecting the Son,
so as apparently to support error ; and that such a fact shows us
that, instead of finding in the early Fathers an accurate report of
Apostolical doctrine, we have often, even in the case of those who
may have been orthodox, language very much opposed toitt
They either held different sentiments at diffe^rent times, or ex-

I Ovx, mftrtrtt /uevor rm virov*ra9im rArr^ «AX4t luu wrtm iitt^cfdtff Koi ikfHtftmt

JW rw vr' oBnuTti rttf maritnait KettUK tutrm tu^/Anvf, vw ^i irfocn^mt « ott «^o-

s n^ A TOOToir tuu irm rw UmifMbrot A^mu ^mttef muvrA frfvno^at *tm TlnufMfn%
*nt ^fcciwfcvjutmit atno iionrot tfofi^m, tun nofrmrw m ttrtwru tuu kmwfytt fcwv r»r*

SiO/ianr. With this teiUiiionj it is difficult to know what to determine respceting
e senniQenets of the <« Letter to Paul of Samosata,'* attribated to Dionysios,
which on other fromidi is, as Dr. Cave tells as, «<sn8pected by many" (maltis
fqspecta). The testimonies it contains to tbe true and proper divinity (in the
highest sense of the term) of the 8on and Holy Spirit are very strong and cletr.
If it be his, we mast sappose either that the expressions here referred to by Basil
were unintentionally incorrect, or that his views underwent some change.

4 Basil M. Ep. 9. Op. ed. Ben. tom. iii. pp. 90, 91.

• Nihil creatnm aut serviens in Trinitate credendum ut vnlt Dionyaint tooM
AriL GiirirAn, De eccles. dogmau e. 4. Inter Op. Auguatin. ed. Ben. torn. 8.
App. oqL 76.

wo Dvrum cirosiuirr* Mt

preaied tboroaelTM to imperiectlj aod incerrectlyy at to appear to
rapport error, even when they did uot intend it

In the same condition with Dionyaius stands Theognostus, wbOf
although be is quoted by Athanasius, as supporting the doctrine of
the Son's consubstantiality, is reprebendea oy Gregory Nyssen tor
very opposite doctrine. ^'Neither [says Gregory Nyssen] was
Eunomius alone deceived in this, dLC. ; but we may find language
equivalent to his in the books of Theognostus, who says that GoAi
whec he wished to construct the universe^ first appointed bis Son
as a certain rule of workmanship."^

The same charge is repeated, with various weighty additions,
by Photius, who accuses him of calling the Son a creature {»r$9pm),
and asserting that he has rule only over rational beings; and ako
of speaking) in an unorthodox way, of the Holy Spirit."^

So the work of Novatian on the Trinity above quoted, is ac-
cused by Ruffinus (who attributes it to Tertullian) of being unor-
thodox on the subject of the Holy Spirit, and he charges the Mace-
donians with havmg exposed it for sale at' a low price at Constan-
tinople, under the name of Cyprian.^

And of Lactantius, we have (as the reader will remember) this
account given us by Jerome. " Lactantius in his writings, and
particularly in his letters to Demetrian, altogether denies the
entity of the Holy Spirit; and, by a Jewish error, says that he is
to be referred either to the Father or the Son ; and that the holi-
ness of each Person is pointed out under his name."* And again ;
"** Many, through ignorance qf the Scriptures^ assert (as also
Firmianus does in the eighth book of his Letters to Demetrian,)
that th^ Father and Son are often called the Holy Spirit. And
while we ought clearly to believe in a Trinity, they taking away
the third Person, hold it to be not a hypostasis of the Trinity, but
a name.*'*

And Augustine, having observed that to the Scriptures alone
he had learned to give such honour as to suppose the writers of
them certainly inerrable, adds, of all other writers, — *' But others,
however distioguished they may be for holiness and learning, I so
read as not to think anything true, because they thought it to be
so, but because they are able to persuade me, either by those

1 Ov fA9foc m vwrm mjrMmrM xt^A Tirr ctTo^ntey rw Jcy/utvcc e Evfo/oo;* *x\* itti

xaravMmaffAt, itfttT9f rof ukf 9tow met lutvovflt t»c ^/Moufykit irfoum^miTavbca, Contr.
EoDofB. Orst. 3a. torn. ii. p. 182. ed. 1616.

2 Phodi Biblioth. Art. 107. col. 280. ed. 1653.

' Apol. pro. Orig. Inter Op. Orig. ed. BeR. torn. 4. App. p. 68. Jerome cor*
rects him in liif replj, at far aa reapeeta the name of the aiithor, iDtiraating that
it was known to be Novatian'a. ^

4 Bee p. 1»6. abotr.

* 8ee p' 196. above.

|t4 vAnwnoo miBmoH

catianieal authorSf or by 9sme probabk reasoni that it it
agreeable to the truih.^^^

Now« had Augustine liekl our oppooenU' doctrioe of ** catholic
consent/' here would have been the fairest possible opportunitj
fiar enforcing il ; indeed, it would have been itnpossible for him to
have passed it over ; but, on the contrary, he tells us that he re*
ceives no doctrine from any other source but the Scriptures,
except by being persuaded of its truth, either by arguments drawn
from the Scriptures, or by reason.

We see, then, that these Fathers made no scruple to find fftuit
with the Fathers that preceded them, and to accuse them of
heterodoxy, even on fundamental points; and even where they
indulged the hope that the heterodoxy of their writings was ra-
ther the result of haste or carelessness, or the desire of victory
over their opponents, than their own convictions, they hesitated
not to pronounce them to be Very unfit guides, on account of that
inaccuracy in their statements. How is it, then, that we are now
requested to take for granted — aye, and that even upon the au*
tbority of these very Fathers of the fourth and succeeding centu-
ries—that all the catholic writers of the first three centuries
must have held the faith correctly in all fundamental points; and
moreover, must have expressed it so correctly in their writings,
that their consent is, in fundamentals, a necessary and infaUible
guide in the interpretation of Scripture?

It is quite true that these Fathers may have held, and proba*
bly did hold, that there had been in the church a succession of
those who had delivered the true doctrine. And so do we. And
hence it is that we admit the principle, that if you take all the
remains of the primitive church for the first few centuries, (our
church seems generally held to include about the first five cen-
turies,) you will find among them a correct statement of the true
orthodox doctrine in all fundamental and important points. And
thus those writings constitute a useful practical check against
the inroads of error, of Popish novelties, and fanatical conceits.
But the notion of our being able to obtain catholic consent for the
whole orthodox faith, or even the consent of the Fathers that re*
main to us after the assiduous weeding that the patristical wri*
tings have in all probability undergone, and which has left us,
out of the " innumerable^* authors of the first three centuries,
the mutilated remains of about twenty, is both utterly opposed
to the statements of the Fathers themselves, and never could

1 Alios aotem ita lego, vt qaaotalibet sanctiute Joctrioaqae prapollaant, non
ideo terain paUm qaia ipsi iu senaeruat, aed quia mihi vel per Ulea aocCorea
banonicnn, yet probabili ratione qaoJ a vero non abhorreat, peiaaadere poUMrant.
£put ad Hieron. 82. (a|. 19 ) Tom. 2. col. 190. ed. Bened.

vo tavvum mfobjubt. 9ti

dwell for a moonent io the mind of any one ftilly acquainted with
their writiogSy and viewing them with aa impartial eye. It may
be a very pretty theory viewed at a dbtance, but it will not stand
the test of examioatioo. There is hardly oDe» perhaps not one,
single point of doctrine now controverted, in which an adversary
of the orthodox doctrine could not bring forward uxne plausibk
patristical evidence in his favour.

How, I would asky is it possible to deny this, when we see such
a man as Photius, whose learning, judgment, extensive reading,
and varied qualifications for pronouncing an opinion, are unde-
niable^* sitting down to give an account of the writings of the
Fathers, which he possessed apparently to a much greater extent
than are now extant, and accusing one and another of them of
erroneous statements in the most mndamental points?' To at«
tribute this to want of judgment and power of discrimination is
out of the question. Against the practice of judging from insa*
lated passages he particularly protests.* To attribute it to par«
tiality is equallv unreasonable, for what object had he to gain by
running them? down? None. How, then, are we to account for
it? Clearly from the fact that these Fathers have expressed
themselves most erroneously; and if, in the judgment of charity, we
can hope that they did not entertain the sentiments they apupear
to have expressed^ but that their expressions are to be set down
to carelessness, or a desire of victory over their apponents, it is,
as Phocius says, but a very poor defence,* and certainly disqauU-
fies them from being considered safe guides, and shuts out the
possibility of catholic consent.

To say the least, then, I would ask. When learned men, even
<» the orthodox side, are disagreed on the question of the ortho-
doxy of these Fathers, even in fundamentals; when it is allowed
by all to require much consideration, and a nice balancing of
seemingly opposite passages, to arrive at the sentiments of these
authors; when it is a common saying that the Fathers often
thought more correct! v than they spoke,^ which is just the ex-
pression of a charitable hope, that though their writings seem to
defend error, they did not mean to do so, and shows how little
fitted their writings are to be a standard of appeal; when it is

< CftTe, fpeakiDg of hit BibUotheca, to which work I am here allading more
ptrdoolirlj, mjs,— >'* Opoe in qno ingeoii acumeo, jndicii gravitatem, legeotb
mdaatrtam an lectionia Tarietatem qaia magia admiratnr hand hah dizerim.''
Hiat Lit ii. p. 48.

I See hia obeervattona on Orlgen, Theognoatiia, Pierina, Methodioa, See,

a See hia Biblioth. Art. 226 on EologiQa, col. 761. ed. 1658.

4 PnoT. Biblioth. Art. 107. De Theognoato, eol. 280. ed. 1668.

' Jam dadom obaerranint Docii, Patrea aspenamero rectina aantiaia qnam )o»
eotoa foiaae. Lomper. Hiat Crit Patr. toL 8. p. 167.

allo^;^ diat some of them must be admitted to hare spoken verr
indisereetly a^ inGorreotly, and some are altogether given up, is
it not preposterous to talk of icathdic consent as' the necessary
and h)faltiMe interpreter of Scripture, and even part of the rule
of faith ? Is it not absurd to maintain that there is a consentient
testimony in (he Fathers on such points^ delivering the faith
more clearly than the Scripture ? And it is worth remarking,
that it was upon the testimony of these very Fathers that Dr.
Clark and Mr. Whiston grounded their unorthodox notions on
this subject) and indeed frdm them they appear to have derived
them.

It is, I admit, a disappointment to find such inaccuracies and
discrepancies, even in the highest points of faith, in the few re-
mains that have come down to us of the earliest instructors of
the Christian church. It renders the argument from them, as
far as those discrepancies extend, very different to what it would
have been had we found them giving a clear consentient testi-
mony to the full orthodox faith.

Nor can it be justly urged that the unorthodox statements of
a few of the Fathers are of no moment^ because compared with
the small number that renmin to us, they are an important part
of the whole. It is easy to say that a few authors are as nothing
compared with the Sentiments of the great body of the church ;
but unfortunately we have only the testimony of a few authors
as to what those sentinrHHits were, and consequently a discrepan-
cy in the statements of those that remain leaves us altogether
uncertain in the matter.

Now I am quite aware that there wlH be some who will be
very impatient at any attempt to show that there is no consent
of Fathers even on points of the greatest nKMnent Of such I
would merely beg to ask one question, — Of what possible con-
sequence can it be to us that out of some twenty or twenty-five
authors that happen to remain to us of the primitive church,
there are a few that seem very much to have misapprehended
the truth in some important points ? That it prevents our hav-
ing anything that we can call an infelKble rule by which to bind
the consciences of meii to believe more tdan Scripture reveals,
or to believe that any certain patristical interpretation of Scrip-
ture is infallibly true, is not to be denied. And this to those who
love to wield the sceptre of authority over others, is no doubt irk*
some* But I cannot see any cause for alarm in it, or that it ex*
poses the truth to any danger. Here are certain philosophi^ng
Christians, converts perhaps from Paganism, speaking very in-
correctlv upon points connected with the doctnne of the Trini-
ty. What then ? Is it any matter for surprise ? What may
have passed upon the subject in the primitive church we ktfbw

not And if ure did know, circamstances may easily have pre*-
eluded any general or even synodical expression of feeling on
the matter. Why we should labour and toil to show that they
did not mean what tbeir expressions seem to imply, or that their
writings must be corrupted, or why we should suppose the truth
endangered by their errors^ I know not. I think we may ven-
ture to affirm, that even in modem times very dangerous tenets
may be propagated by writers without the church moving to con*
demn them. At any rate, my opponents cannot condemn me for
quoting these passages, for their theory is, that the truth is de-
livered obscurely in Scripture, but clearly in the Fathers. They
cannot surely then object to men being made acquainted with
those dear expositions (as they think them) of the orthodox faith.
If they are so clear they can do no harm, though quoted by one
who is dull enough to misapprehend them.

Having entered so fully into the evidence against any supposed
consent of the Fathers in the very highest points, I shall be more
brief as it respects the others I purpose noticing.

To go through all the points on which even the Fathers that
remain to us are divided in sentiment, would be to go through
almost all, if not all, the points of Christian doctrine, except per-
haps such as are in so many words laid down in the Apostles'
Creed. I will instance, however, a few.

And first, the doctrine of the proc'iession of the Holy Spirit
from the Father and the Son. It will not, I conceive, be de-
nied, that to obtain any clear evidence in favour of this doctrine
from the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is impossible, and
that, with the exception of such passages as that of Origen
quoted above, in which the Holy Spirit is represented as being
one of the things made by the Son,* wherever the relation of the
Holy Spirit to the other Persons of the Godhead is mentioned,
the expressions used would rather favour the doctrine maintained
by the Greek Church of the procession from the Father only.
And when the point came to be discussed, there was a great di-
vision of opinion on the subject, the majority apparently holdii^
the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father
and the Son^ but others, as Theodoret, maintaining that the
Spirit proceeded from the Father only. Thus Theodoret says,—
"That the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, if he [i. e. Cyril] means
as of the same nature, and proceeding from the Father, we con-
fess it too, and receive it as an orthodox saying; but if he means
it in th^ sense of his being from the Son,, or as having his subsis-
tence through the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and

1 See p. 198 abpTe.

328 itAntmcAL TBAfttnoir

impknis. ^^ And it h maiDtained by the adherents of thit
io the Greek Qiurch, that this is the true catholic doctrine of
the church. Thus Michael Psellus, who wrote in the eleventh
century, says,— ^' The holy and catholic church holds that the
Spirit proceeds from the Father only, and not from the Son/''

And certainly as far as patristical testimony is canctmedf
it forms a strong n^ative argument in favour of those who deny
the procession from the Son, that the Creed as agreed upon at
the Council of Constantinople, had only the words, '* who pro*
ceedeth from the Father ;'' the words ** and the Son" having
been added long after by the Latins.*

Others of the Greek Fathers appear to have approached near*
er the doctrine of the Latin church in this point than Theodoretf
but hardly any of the antient Greek Fathers, as far as I am
aware, held properly the procession from the Son.

This surely is another proof that the notion that there was a
full and correct report of all the important doctrines of Christie
anity handed down by the consentient testimony of the Fathers
of each age is a mere dream of the imagination, completely dis-
proved by the facts of the case.

The same may be said of the Nestorian and Eutychian here*
sies. The defenders of these heresies stoutly maintained that the
primitive Fathers were in their favour, as we shall hereafter
show ; and this appeal, in the absence of the testimonies they ad-
duced, it is but idle to treat as the mefe falsehood of heretics*
Nay, Theodoret, one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers,
when denying the hypostatical union of the divine and human
natures in Christ, which was the very essence of the Nestorian
heresy, says, ** the hypostatical union we altogether reject, as
outlandish and foreign to the divine Scriptures and the fathers
who have interpreted them"*

Let us next inquire whether these Fathers bore a consentient
testimony on the points connected with what are now called
Pelagian errors. So far from it, that we find many passages in
them very pointedly in favour of those errors.

«c ^Mtt-ftifm mn9 jmi mt/v^^tfite mf^f*», Tbxoboekt. Repr, Aoathem. \ij»
rill. adT% Anath. 9. Op. torn. t. p. 47. ed. Schvlse.

I <H «>Mi MMj, xMBtxtttM, EutMfd-MC hyfxtm^u TO mtu/uu^ M /ixofou rov Tltftfof

gXflro^K/Tif, «^x' 9uxt •» rw Tiecr. Gap. Theol. C. 10. p. 167,

• See Pearson on the Greed, Art 8, (pp. 4S6»7. Dobeon) and Bnrton'a Teatlm.
to Doctr. of Tria. p. 144.

fm nju *rm «r«vT«c ipiamuitvrm ^rturtfm, THBOSompnr. Hepr. AnaUiem. Gyrill. Op.
torn. T. p» 10. dchalie. And see Uie obaetvationa of Oarnier, ib. pp. 404 %ii
478, dfce.

HO MTIIVB INFORXAlfT. 220

Thus Gement of Alexandrin, when disputing agHinst the
1 Rtianisto, says, " Let them tell us where the newborn mfdnt
hath coiiMiiitted forDication, or how one who has done nothing
hath fallen under AdanCs curse^^ where in efibct the doctrine
of original sin is clearly denied.

As it respects the doctrine of freewill, it is notorious that the
early Fathers have often expressed theniselves roost erroneously
on the subject. It is satisfactory, bowerer, to be able to add that
moit of them have done so inconsistently with their own state-
ments in other passages. On this matter I know not that I can
do better than quote the following passage from the learned Bi-
shop Morton, which probably contains a fair and just view of the
case, and to which I the rather refer the reader, because Bishop
Morton is not only an able judge on the point, but also one of
our opponents* favourite witnesses. In his reply to the Romish
Apologie, in which a sarcastic allusion had been made to the
complaints of the Protestants as to the erroneous statements of
some of the Fathers on this point, he speaks thus, — *^ The ten-
sure which the judicious Protestants have passed upon antient
authors is not an universal taxation of all, but yet of many*
Now, if the Apologists had not in this their opposition rather
affected (as may be feared) seducement than judgment, they
might have taught their reader from theirown Sixtus Senensis, and
from three of their principal Jesuits, that in the root of the doc«
trine of freewill, 'Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius,
(Ecumenius, Ammonius, and most of others, especially in the
Greek church, did yield too much unto the power of nature in
the free will of man.' And in this and other doctrines of affini-
tie therewith did seem to have ^ inclined, contrarie unto Scrip-
ture, unto the error of the Pelagians.' Wherein we easily per-
ceive with what prejudice the Apologists have been transported
thus to traduce Protestants as being injurious in that taxation,
wherein by the judgment of their own Jesuits they stand justi-
fiable unto every conscience of man. Nevertheless we do not
sojudge the Fathers as herein damnably erroneous^ hut so far
EXCUSE them^ as we shall be able to show, that the censured
Fathers were but inconstantly erroneous in their doctrine of Free-
will, who did often deliver unto us concerning it most wholesome
receipts. The Protestant authors, viz. the Centurists and Sculte-
tus in the places alleged by the Apologists, have particularly
and by name observed that Justinus, IrerisBus, Clemens, Tertullian,

I Agyrrmrm^ ifutt ^rw lanfnifTm to ymirOfr Tttdhf^ n wmf v^ro m rw A^«fc virirtftrm*
f m»0» *f /u»6<y fnf>«r«?. Strom. Ub. UL pp. 56ft, 7. ad. Potttr. And if we are

to MppoM thtt th» work called ** Hypotj potee,'* aMribotod to him, and meotion-
ed bj Photiaa, wm really hie, he is chargeable with itateMeBts fiir more nnortfie-
dox than thia

TOLL

J

S30 FATBUnCXL TBAOmOS

Origen, Cyprian, and others, albeit maky tikbb they pleaded
for ike freewill of the corrupt nature of man. yet were they
soMGTiHB reduced unto the more orthodoxal hold, writing there-
of more commodiously." And he adds hii belief that " the oc-
casion of this diflerence" was " a whirlwind of contrary herenes,"
throw of which some Fathers did contrarily yield
'o the powerof the will."'

;e preientd us, 1 believe, with (he true stale of Ihe

y one inclined to take a charitable and favourable

the Fathers have delivered, but never dreaming of

it their consent was part of the rule of faith, and

;uide to the right interpretation of Scripture. Find

ng an impartial view of their Gtatements.* And it

t if this passage gives us at ail a correct view of the

ird to thinic of deriving any thing like a consentient

n them in favour of the orthodox doctrine, when

itradicted themselves in the matter, and some of

note frequently in favour of the erroneous than of

doctrine. That there is a testimony in fhem in

orthodox doctrine is a proposition ybf w Ate A u)e con-

tend, but that there is a consistent and consentient testimony

pervading the whole of them is what we wholly deny, and what

is altc^elher opposed to the plain facts of the case. And thus

again, in this most important point, instead of obtaining in them

a sure interpreter of Scripture and Judge of controversies, we

are compelled to make Scriptnre the judge of their controversies,

and even the judge between the contradictory statements of the

same individual.

I will give one more example on this head, viz. the interesting
and important question as to the intermediate state of the souls
of the just between death and the resurrection. And as it is
a point which has been less fully discussed than those ah-eady
mentioned, and which can hardly fail to be interesting to the
reader, I will enter more at lai^e into it, especially as it is a re-
markable instance how clearly and strongly a doctrine may be
laid down by primitive Fathers, and defended by a lai^e body of
them, which yet was not held by others, and consequently a proof
how easily we may be deceived when concluding, that because ft
doctrine was held by those whose works happen to remain, that
is, by those of them who have mentioned the subject, therefore,
it must have been held bj the universal church.

I Moarm'* Cithatiqas Appnl far PraUaUnU, pp. 901, %.

* Tbia view is ibandiDtly eonfinnad hj our learned Dr. Wtailikcr, fabli Tm- '
tin, D« pecctto onfinili, lib. ij c. S, bal Bidiop Morton ii oaa of aur oppoiieat*'
~ ti far tliB d(>cliiD« of oat cbureb oa lliii wbola nitjecL

Ko DiviHi nrroiHAirr. 331

On this pokil then— viz. (he intermediate state of the muIs of
the just between death and the resurrection —

We find Irenteus thus speaking; — "8ince the Lord departed
to the valley of the tihadow of death [nlluding apparently to
Psa. zxiii. 4.] where the smtls of Ike dead were, and then al^er-
wardi rose in the body, and after his resurrection was taken
up; it is manifest that the souls of his disciples ab
Account the Lord did these things, go away to the pi
visible place] appointed for them by God, and there
the resurrection, awaiting the resurrection; and tl
had their bodies restored to (hem, and risen perfec
with their bodies, even nt the Lord arose, shall thua i
vision of God."' And in the context, he calls the
those who supposed that the souls of believers enjoyed
of God immediately after their death heretical.

The same doctrine is delivered by Justin Martyr,
Dialogue with Trypho, says, that " the souls of th
main somewhere in a belter sort of place, and the
wicked souls in a worse, awaiting the time of the j
And he, like IrenEeus, classes the doctrine that Ihe s
just are immediately received into heaven among the notions of
the heretics ;^" If," he says, " ye meet with some who are called
Christians, who do not admit this, [i. e. the doctrine of the mil-
lennium] and who say that there is no resurrection of

the dead, but that a-i soo7i as they die, their soult are taken
up into heaven, you must not suppose them to he Christians."*
Here, doubtless, the gravamen of the heresy was in denying the
resurrection, hut nevertheless, the doctrine that the souls of the
just are received at once into heaven, is part of the doctrine
here reprehended as heretical.

So, also, Tertullian. " But if Christ, who was God, because
he was also man, having died according to the Scripturee, and
been buried according to the same, complied also with this law,

I QoDin enim Dominiii in meJio umbm martU ibieiil, abi idiids morluoiQm
ennt, pDM deiods eorporaliler muririit, el poat reiurraciiunem iiiumlu* en',
mtDifmtnm e«t quit et dUcipulorum fju". propiei quot et hec opcTttui cal Domi-
OIU, « ■|"Z*' ""fX""^" "( ''■" ■'■WH [iniisihilem locum, Vel. Lat. in*.] nt afir-
/iUst Mvmt n*! Toil Smi, luu f'Xf' ""' "*'■'•*'*•< *vi"", tntifiniorai nn •tinri/i-
«•■ nrms aarnc&iiKrai T« s-*u»rii, xu slsiui^ anWTM-«J, tmittti Ta/iarmai, xa9ai
uj J Kupme anm, wm iMunrru wc tit e-iii itu etw. Iriei. lib. r, c. 3t. (p. 331,
•d. MiH.) Thera ii liao ■ puaaga, lib. *. o- S. (p- 198} which ie«ina ot umilM

' Tw fot •nn lunim, ir wfirrTW •m Xf^ !'"''> '"* '' ■''■m juu mnitat m X"/"'-
•QH «[ ifirmt utixf"" Xf"" ""^ ["m Thirlb.] Jvniw. Dial. ODm Tijph. f
S- p. lOT. ed. BenKt.

* El yaf iLu nn&(MTi U|UW tin yr^tfitnif Xfirrmw, tAii«iTi[a ifntirynntt •
(i «« ttyturi (u mu »«*« sitr-rjiro, t*^ ■M<« t» onhanw tat ■f**'^ iifm nUMk,
/•ttitriti uc TR tvfcon, /it vnKcAm utm Xjmvdhwc. [». ib. i 80. p, 178.

9M PATBimoAft nuDinoii

having put on tbe appearance of hnman death in these lower
regions; and did not ascend to the heights of the lieaven before
he descended to the lower parts of the earth, that he might make
the Patriarchs and Prophets there partakers of his presence^ yon
have also to believe a subterraneous region in the lower parts of
the earthy and drive away those who proudly enough think that
the souls of the faithful deserve a better abode than the lower
regbns; being truly servants above their Lord, and disciples
above their Master, disdaining perhaps to receive in the bosom

of Abraham the comfort of an expected resurrection

Heaven is open to none while the earth remains safe, not to say
closed. For the kingdom of heaven will be opened with the
passing away of the world You have also a little trea-
tise on Paradise, written by us, in which we have resolved, that
every soul is set apart in the lower regions against the day of the
Lord."* And further on in the same treatise,— "Are therefore
all souls kept in the lower regions ? You speak rightly. Be you
willing or unwilling, there are now there both torments and de«
lights.'"

And again, elsewhere, with a mere verbal difference as to the
use of the phra^, ♦* lower regions,** he says, " Whence it is evi-
dent to every wise man that there is a certain place

which is called the bosom of Abraham, set apart for the recep-
tion of the souls of his children, even of the Gentiles . . . that that
place therefore, I mean the bosom of Abraham, which, although
not in heaven, is yet above the lower regions, will in the mean-
time afford refreshment to the souls of the just until the consum-
mation of things shall bring about the resurrection of all in the
fulness of the reward."'

t Qaod 81 Christur Deut, quia et homo, mortaut secundum Scripturtf et sepiil-
tut tecut eafdem, huic quoque legi satisfecit, fonm humana mortis apad iDferos
functus ; nee ante ascendil in aublimiora coelonim quam descendit in tnferiora
terrarum, ut illic Patriarch us et Prophetas compotes sui faceret, habes et regioiieiii
inferi^m subterraneam credere, et illos cubito pellere qui satis superbe non pa-
tent animas fidelium inferis dignas : servi super Dominum, et disctpuli super
Magistrum, aspernati si forte in Abrahs sinu expectands resurrection is solatium
cspere . . . Nulli patet caelum terra adhuc aalva, ne dizerim clause. Cum
iransactione enim mundi reserabuntur regna coelorum . • . Habea etiam de Para-
diso a nobis libellum, quo constituimus omnem animam apud inferoa aequaalrari
in diem Domini. Tsrtull. De Anima. c. 55. p. 304. ed. 1664.

s Omnes ergo anima penea inferos 1 Inqais. Velis ac noKs et aupplicia jam illic
•t refrigeria. Id. ib. c. 68. p, 306.

s Unde appftret sapieoti ouique . • . ease aliquam loealem determinatioiiem,
qua siaqs dicta sit Abraha ad reolpiendas enimas filioram fjne, eiiam ex nationi*
bus . . . Eam itaque regionem, sinum dico Abraha, etsi non caleatem, subUmio*
rem tamen inferis, interim refrigerium prabituram antmabus justorum donee coh-
BvronMiiio rerum resurreotionem omniom plenitudine mereedis expungat. lo.
adT. Manx lib. iv. c 34. pp. 450, 451.

no DivnrB iKPosxAiCTi m

Other similar pimafes may be found in his writings.*
There is also a passage of Clement of Alexandria, which seems
to show that he held the same view, where he speaks of ** the
expected resarrection, whin at the end of the world the angeb
shall receive the truly pc^nitent into the heavenly tabernacles
• . . and before all the Saviour himself meets him with a kind
reception, affording light, cloudless and eternal, leading him to
the bosom of the Father, to eternal light, to the kingdom of
heaven."*

Thus 'also Origen, — "For not even the Apostles," he says,
^ have yet received their joy, but themselves also wait for it,
that I also may become a partaker of their joy. For neither the
saints, when they depart hence, receive immediately the full re^*
ward of their deserts, but wait for us ... • You see, therefore,
that Abraham yet waits for the attainment of that which is per-
fect And Isaac waits, and Jacob, and all the Prophets wait for
us, that they may enjoy with us perfect happiness. On this ac«
count, therefore, even that mystery is kept to the last day of the
deferred judgment."' And again he says, elsewhere, " It is my
opinion that all the saints that depart from this life shall remain
in a certain place in the earth, which the divine Scripture calls
Paradise, as in a place of instruction."^

In the immediate context of this last passage, however, he
seems to intimate that their stay in this place is longer or shorter,
according to their deserts; and that they gradually ascend
through a succession of such places to heaven; which is not
very reconcileable with the former passage, and is a specimen of
what we so oilen meet with in several of the Fathers ; namely,
that self-contradiction, which makes it almost impossible, and
sometimes quite impossible, to tell what their real views were.

1 See TiRTVLi. Apologet c. 47. p. 37. Scorp. «. IS. p. 49a
' A?«rTcwMK tX9ri{o/u»«c. orwt » in trvrn^tM rw cumoif oi ttyyiku tovc «\JrS«c fAVnU"
fet/rr«< ^^i^mrrtu m( vrwftfuuvt o-JunAf, . . irpo /H vwnm aurdt i Xirr»p ^pMurarrei Af Av
fMrec, 9»{ ofty09 et^-juov, (urtuuv^m- l^tr^ uc tovc WKvwi rw IlitT^, lie *nn mmun {oni9y
»t< m Bdia-ixtuL9 tin wptam, Clbx. Alix. Qaie Dives saUetor. ad Jin, ed. Potter,
pp. 960, 961.

3 Nondum enim recepenint Istitiam toam ne Apottoli qoidem, aed et ipai ex-
apectant, at et ego Istitis eonim paiticepa fiam. Neqoe enim deeedentea Mdc
tanclj, contiDtto Integra meritoruin aaoroin pramia cooaequuntar ; sed exapectant
etiam noe . . . Vides ergo quia exapectat adhuc Abraham, ot qoe perfecta aont
eonaeqaatar. Exapectat et Isaac, et Jacob, et oronea Propheta exspectant noa
Qt nobiacum perfectam beatitadiDem eapiaot. Propter bsc ergo etiam myateriam
illnd in nltimam diem dilati judidi cQstoditar. Orig. Horn. 7. in Levit % 3.
torn. S. p. 232. See also Horn. 26 in Nora. % 4. p. 372.

4 Pato enim qnod aancti qaique disoedentes do hae vita permanebant in loco
•liqoo in terra posito, qaem paradianm dicit Scripture diVina, velnt in qoodam
emditioDia ioco. Oaio. De Priocip. lib. 2. ad fin- c xi. § 6. torn. 1 p. 106. ed.
Ben.

U*

SM wnvTKUz

However, a* it napccls the p<Hot now in qvettioi), hb view it
evideDtlf , to a certain extent at least, agreeable to that of the
Fathen already quoted.

The last I ahall quote is Lactantius, who thus delivers the
•ame doctrine.—" Nor let any one think that souls are judged
immediately after death. For all are kept in Mie common place of
custody, until the time comes when the great Ju^e will make
ionuiry iato their deserts."^

To these authorities, various others might be added, both of
those who lived during the first three centuries, and of the best
writers of the Bucce«dina; times ; insomuch that it has been
represented as a doctrine in which all the primitive writers
consented

I would observe, also, that ti/ull deseripHon of the place of
abode of the spirits of the departed, is given in a fragment of
a work on the universe, altriboted to various authors, but unore
particularly to Caius.' Whence the writer got his informatioD,
oe does not tell va-*

We shall fiod, however, that it only afibrds us a proof how
clearly and strongly many of the primitive Fathers may deliver
a doctrine ou an important point, (for such, unquestionably, is
the onel before us,} and even rank the opposite doctrine among
heretical notions; wlien, nevertheless, there were men of equal
authority iu the church, who held that opposite view ; and con-
sequently how impossible it is on such points, with the few re-
mains we have of the primitive Fathers, to lay claim to Catholic
consent on one side or the other.

It su happens that there are two Fathers in this period, to
whom we find passages very clearly conveying the oppoule
doctrine.

The first is Ignatius, who, in his Epistle to the Romans, says,
ID the prospect of his martyrdom, " Suffer me to become the
food of wild beasts, through whom it is in my power to attain
the presence of God."*

I Nee Umen qniMjDini pulet, animti port morUm' proiinai ju<1ic*ri. Nm
iDniqiH cniiMli* delinenlUT, <loDec lempui idveDJat, qta
arum fwiu eianMO. Lactast. loalit. lib. 7. ^ 31. p. sas.

Ihe notciaf HccschBl. on Pbotina. pp. 10, II ; oi in Bip-
And we isipecting it. Phot- Cod. 48. Col. 86., ud HotUh
>. 31,3.

TreBtUe 2}e atiima, and thi Aothor of the Qumii. ad ortluJ.
Iirljt (qu»t 76, 7a, 89,) lenture Dpoa Ihe atraBg* itotioa
ij dspartail aoula, ii tbe paniliia io which Adam «aa ; ana-
>aj in which ibe Fathcra' atatemeiili oppoaa aach olbri ia

I itfai, ti' m tiwia Bun trmxn. Igoatli Ep- ad Rom. % 4.

MP mmm myoBSAfiv* 8N

And agnitii itill inore dearly^-'' The tivii^ water . • • • says
within me, • Come to the Father.' "*

The other is Cyprian.—" How great,** be says, <* is the honor,
and how great the security, to go hence joyful ; to depart in
triumph amidst afflictions and troubles ! to shut in one moment
the eyes with which men and the world were seen, and to open
them immediately that God maybe seerif and Christ 1 How

JTeat the speed of the happy journey! You are suddenly taken
rom the earth, that you may he placed in a state of rest in the
heavenly kingdom.'^*

Tliere are some other passages in Cyprian, which intimate
the same view.

And were we to proceed beyond the first three centuries,
we should find the same view maintained by Epiphanius,' Am^
brose,^ (though perhaps inconsistently with himself in otl^r
parta,^) and others.^

It is evident, then, that these Fathers held the doctrine which
the others repudiated, viz. that disembodied souls go at once to
heaven, and enjoy, previous to the resurrection, the beatific
vision of the Father* It is possible that other passages may be
found in the writings of this period of a similar kind, but cer-
tainly the testimony in favour of this vi^w will be found to be
small, compared with that we have for the opposite. I enter
not here into the question, which doctrine has the best claim
upon our belief. That is beside our present subject. But the
case clearly shows that even on such points, and where the doc*
trine of one side at least was very emphatically laid down as
the only true doctrine, the Fathers widely differed. And it also
shows how easily we might have the appearance of catholic
consent in the writings that remain to us, where there was not
really catholic consent. For had it so happened that these two
or three passages, which express a doctrine contrary to that
which is so clearly delivered by the majority, had beep lost, we
should have been told that we were opposing catholic consent,

ed Jacobg. torn. ii. pp. 852, 4. A Minilar exprcMion occurs § ;t. p. 348, and § 9.
p. 868.

1 T/Wp (m . . •mBtf (Mi xt)^^) Aivt»9 Tpec <r«v Tl^tfn^A. lb. %. 7. pp. 964—6.

> Quanta eat digpitaa et quanta aecuritaa ezire bine Istum, exire inter preaau*
raa et anguetiaa glorinaum, claudere in momento oculos quibua bominea videban-
tur et roundus, et aperire eoadem statim ut Veut videatur et Cbriatua ! Jam feli-
citer migrendi quanta velocitas ! Terria repente subtraberit at in regnit cmhtH*
bvt reponarie. CxfRtAii. De exbort. marl, ad fin. ed. Pamel.

s Adt. bsr. in bar. 78. Antidicomar. § 24. Tom. 1- p. 1066.

4 De fide lib 4. cc 1, 2.

B See Admon. ed. Bened. in libr. De bono mortis. Ambros. Op. Tom. 1. col.
885. et aeq.

< See King on the Creed, pp. 204—22. 4tb. ed. 1719.

S36 fAnmuncAJL tbamtioh

and the doctrine of the Apostlesi in myiog what these authors
have said, and what, for aught we know, hundreds and thou-
sands held in the primitive church, and many perhaps have
published.

The confession of the Benedictine Editors of Ambrose on this
subject is so remarkable and instructive, that I here subjoin it.
^ It is not, indeed, surprising," they say, ** that Ambrose should
have written in this way concerning the state of souls ; but it
maj appear almost incredible how uruiertain and inconsistent
the holy Fathers^ from the very times of the Apostles to the
Pontificate qf Gregory XL and the Council of Florence^
that is, for almost the whole of fourteen centuries, were on this
point. For not only does one differ from another, as generally
happens in questions of this kind before they are decided by
the church; but they are not even consistent with themselves;
for in some places of their writings they seem to concede the
clear vision of the Divine nature to the same souls to which
in other places they deny it. But it is not to our purpose here
to collect together those opposing testimonies of the antient
Fathers. Any one who wishes to know nwre on this matter
may consult Alph. a Castro, (lib. 3, adv. haer.) Sixtus Senensis,
(Bibl. I. 6. Annot. 345.), fiellarmine, (lib. 1. De Beat. c. l,et
seq.)t Petavius (Theolog. dogm. de Deo,c. 13 and 14), and others.
We here only observe, that all that contrariety sprung from the
different ideas (principiis) which the reading qf the Holy Scrip-
tures supplied to those holy menJ^^

The reader will here observe, then, that so far from **the
church*' deciding agreeably to the consent of the preceding
Fathers, it is admitted that there is no such thing as consent to
be looked for until ** the church'' has decided, and that the
early Fathers gathered their views, not from tradition, but from
Scripture; conclusions which, though not perhaps in the mind of
the authors of this passage, clearly flow from it.

Further ; as the Fathers thus diflfer in thbir doctrinal state-
ments both from one another and from themselves, so, as might
be expected, and as it is hardly necessary to add, do they differ
in the interpretation they give to the Scriptures when comment-
ing upon them, and that even in the case of the most important
texts.

I will give some instances of this, and none are more pertinent
than those commonly adduced in proof of this point But it will
be easy to add to them, if necessary, though but for the necessity
of showing the groundlessness of the ill-advised claims made by

> AdaoB. in AmbrM. libr. D« boDo mortit. Tom. 1. coL 966, S.

Ko nrrmm imromxAirr. S87

oQr opponent!, one woald wiUiiigly have pawed tbem aU over ia
silence.

(L) Frov. viii. 22. The Lord peseaied {Sqtt. created) me in
the beginnipg of bis way before his works of old.

This passage is, bj most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that re-
main to us, applied to the divine generati<Hi of the Son. Thus,
for instance, it is applied by (among others) Justin Mar^r,*
Athenagonis,^ Clement of Alexandria,' and Tertuliian.* But
Irenseus applies it to the Holy Spirit.^ And when afterwards the
Arians used it as favourable to their cause, it was eenerally ap-
plied by the orthodox Fathers to the generation of the human
nature of Christ. That this is its proper meaning is very deci-
sively laid down by Athanasius^ and Augustine ;' and the same
meaning is attached to it by Basil^ and Epiphanius,* ifthepaa*
sage is applied to Christ at all, though the latter gives bis
opinion very decidedly against its being applied to Christ at all,
though on account, as he says, of some of the Fathers having so
applied it, the adoption of this meaning is not blameworthy, if
only it be limited to the human nature ;^" and Basil is evidently
inclined to the same opinion.**

And the interpretation given by Hilary does not precisely agree
with any of these ; for he explains the words as referring to the
period when our Lord first assumed (as he supposes) a human
form, to carry on intercourse with meuj and appeared to Adam
in Paradise, and afterwards to Abraham, d^c*'

(2.) John X. 30. I and my Father are one.

This is a text in which, had there been any traditive interpre-
tation of Scripture handed down by the consent of the Fathers,
we might peculiarly have expected such a guide. But we find
nothing of the kind. For by some of the Fathers the unity here
spoken of is explained as being a moral unity, with reference to
an agreement in will, and purpose, and views, while by others it

I Dial, cum Tryph. pp. 158 and 223. ed. Ben.
a Leg. pro Christtanii, 4 10. p. 887. ed. Ben.

8 Cohort, ad gent. Op. tom. i. pp. 67, 8- ed. Potttt.

4 See pasaagec quoted above, p. 209.

^ Adv. her. iv. 20. ed. Mass. iv. 37. ed. Grab.

* De deer. Nic. 8jn. 4 l4. tom. i. p. 220. ed. Ben. Su. Sec

7 De fide et symb. § 6. tom. vi. coL 154. De Trin. lib- i. 4 24. tom. viiL col.
765.

8 AHeyuM ut T»r m»Bf40!r9nnA mmw roMr. Adv. Ennom. lib. iv. tom. i« p. 393. ed.
Ben.

9 See the passage below, near the end of this aeolion.
»Ib.

II lb.

u Creatos est in viae Dei a seoulo, cum ad conspioabilem speeiem anbditos ere^-
tnrs habitum ereatienit aseomsit. De Trin* lib. xii. % 46. Op* coL 1136. ad.
Ben.

M8 PATSUmCAL TRADITIOH

10 explained m being a phjncal unity, with relatioii to the divine
nature and essence.

Thus Novatian says,— •" The oneness be speaks of has relation
to their concord, and their having the same view, and their being
united together in love, so that the Father and Son are properly
one by agreement, and by love, and by affection." And he pro-
ceeds to illustrate it by the words of St. Paul relating to himself
and ApoUos, << he that planteth and he that watereth are one^
(1 Cor. iiL 8.)*

Upon which Pamelius remarks, — *' In this he does not write
with sufficient caution, in that he does not assert any communion
of essence between the Father and the Son, imitating even in
this Tertullian ; and, more than this, he brings also an example
from the Apostle, 1 Cor. iii. which is as it were contrary to the
unity of the essence, in which I am not afraid to say that he was
certainly deceived."*

A similar explanation of this text is given by Origen, who
plainly says that the unity of will in the Father and Son *^ was
the cause of the Son's saying, * I and the Father are one.' "»

To these might perhaps be added Tertullian* and Athenagoras/
as supposing the same view.

And the same explan:ition is given by Eusebius, whose ortho-
doxy some have stoutly contended for ; though the Benedictines'
more wisely have given him up. He says, '* For as he said that
he and the Father were one, saying, ' I and the Father are one,'
^ he prays that we all^ in imitation of him, may partake of
the same unity ^ not that, as Marcellus thinks, the Word is
united to God, and connected with him in essence.' " '

Among the Ante-Nkene Fathers, I am not aware that there
is any passage in which this text is interpreted as showing the
unity of essence between the Father and the Son. But, in the
disputes with the Arians, this text was. constantly referred to in
that signification; as, for instance, by Atbanasius, Hilary,

1 Unom qood ait, ad concordiam et eandem tententiam et ad iptara cfaariUUs
fociatatem pertinet, at merito unum ait Pater et Piliaa per concordiam et per
amorem et per dilectioDem • . . Denique noTit banc concords onitatem et Apos-
tolot Paulut cam peraonamm tamen dittincttone. ^. [1 Cor iii. 8.] Notatiahi
De Trin. c. S2. ^ • Pameliaa in loc.

* Atrtof n *rw xtyw Tor t/iov, rym, tuu o TsiTNp h *ffA». In Johann. torn, liii- § 36 ;
torn- if. p. 245. See alto De Princip. lib. i. § 8. torn. i. p- 56. and Contra Celt,
lib. Tiii. § 18. torn. I. p. 750- and in Esek- horn. 9. torn. iiL p- 388. ed. Ben.

4 AdT. Piax. c 28.

* Leg. pro. Chrittianit, % 10. p. 867.

* See Divinitaa Christ! , ^. pp. 579, fu,

7 Clffm^ yof Avroc, icu/rev Tf juu <rof {tat^ h ffr«i t^fyi, pAo-umt Eym tuu e Tlavnp W
fc/uiv' iurt$ luu ir«rr«< i/tutt tutr^ *nn mttvt fjUfjmnt <n»r wt^rwttc ^t mvrw fAmturj(ti9 mX'
rriu. ¥i jut/va, M«M«^or, tmt Aayw hmfimmt tm ef» jhu tm mwm §w^m^%ttfmm Evas*

Bii Da Eocl. Thaolog. lib. iii. c 19. p. 193. ad. CoL 1688,

Basil, Ambroee, Cyril of Jerusalem, C^ril of Alexandria, Augus-
tine, and others,^ whose words I need not quote, because their
vjew of the passage is well-known and admitted.

(3) John xiv. 28. My Father is greater than I.

On this important text, we in vaih look for consent in the in-
terpretations of the Fathers. Irenaeus says, that when Christ
said that the Father, who communicates with the Son in nil
things, alone koew the day and hour of the judgment, be said
so '* that we might learn through him,, that the Father was
above all things. For, saith he, ^ The Father is greater than
I ;' *'* where it is evident that Irenaeus considered the words as
applying to the divine nature of Christ ; though I suppose, from
his orthodoxy elsewhere, only with reference to the order of the
Persons in the Trinity, and not to their nature or essence.

But, as it respects Novatian and Origen, they not merely ap-
ply the words to the divine nature of Christ, but seem to ac-
knowledge a real inferiority of nature.

Thuf Novatian says, — ^* Fbr who will not acknowledge that
the person of the Son is second. after the Father, when he finds
it said . . . ' He who sent me is greater than I.' " To which he
adds shortly after, — ** The Son affirms that he was sanctified by
his Father. Since, therefore, he receives sanctification from the
Father, he is inferior to the Father. But be is consequently in-
ferior to the Father, but nevertheless Son. For if he had been
the Father, he would have given sanctification, and not received
it; but now, by affirming that he received sanctification from the
Father, by this very thing by which he proves that he is inferior
to the Father, by receiving sanctification from biqi, he proves
that he is the Son, and not the Father.""

And Origen says, — '< Be it so that there are some among the
multitude of those who believe and receive a different doctrine,
who rashly maintain that the Saviour is the supreme God over
all ; yet, nevertheless, we do no such thing ; believing him who

1 See Maldonatus orXampe in loc.

s Si quit ezquirat caiMam, propter qaam in omnibua Pater commanicaDi Filio
solos scire boram et diem a Domino manifestatns est, neque aptabilem magis neqoe
decentiorem nee sine periculo alteram quam banc invenial in prasenti (quoniam
enim solus verax roagister est Dominns) ut diseamus per ipsam super omnia esse
Patrem Etenim Pater, ait, major me est. Ibxn. AdT. bar. lib. 8. o* 28. ed. Mass.
c 49 ed. Grab.

s Qois entm non secnndam Filti post Patrem agnoscat esse peraonam, cnn legat

dictam, &r aut dum inTenit positom, * Quoniam qui me miait major md

est' (De Trin. c 21.) Filtos . . . sanctificatom se a suo Patre esse proponit. Dam
ergo accipit sanctificationem a Patre minor Patre est ; minor autem Patre conse-
qaenter est, sed Filius. Pater enim si fuisset sanctificationem dedisset non accep-
iaset. £t nunc autem profitendo se accopisse sanctificationem a Patre, hoc ipso
qao Patre ae minorem, aeoipieodo ab ipeo sanctificationem, prebat, filium se
IMI Patrem monttrtYit IK e. %%. ed. CoU 1617.

240 PATVimOAL TlUDITfOir

said, 'The Father that sent tne is greater than I.' We

who say that the material world is his who created all things^
clearly maintain that the Son is not stronger than the Father,
but inferior to him ; and we say this, believing him when he said,
*The Father that sent me is greater than I.***

And the same view of this passage is maintained by him else*
where.*

Nor do I Fee how Tertullian can be explained otherwise than
as affirming the same doctrine from this passage, when he says,-^'
''The Father is the whole substance, but the Son a derivation
and portion of the whole, as he himself professes; 'For the Fa-
ther is greater than 1.' »« .

But by others of the Fathers, especially those engaged in dis-
putes with the Arians, these words are explained as referring to
the human nature of our Lord.

Thus Athanasius says, — ** Whatsoever, therefore, the Scrip-
ture says as to the Son receiving, and the Son being glorified, it
says this with respect to his humanity, not with respect to his
divinity* And when he says, * My Father who sent me is great-
er than I,' he says that the Father was greater than he, from
his having become man. But as the Wora of the Father, he is
equal to him."*

And Cyril of Alexandria says,-— ^' The word of God is above
humanity as one who is by nature (rod and the Son ; but not dis-
daining to appear to be in subjection, on Recount of his having
taken human nature. Tnerefore, at one time he said, 'He that
hath seen me bath seen the Father,' ' I and the Father are one ;'
at another time, on the other hand, ' My Father is greater than
I.' For being not inferior to the Father as regarded identity of
essence or anything else whatever, in which he could be com-
pared to the Father, he says, that he is among things inferior on
account of his human natureJ***

nSta-Btu tov ^itmcA mdu tor (Aryta^nf trt ir^rt QKf aXx* wrt y* i/AUt ToMt/Tcr^ o< Tntfkfju-

yoi AvT» Xfyorrt, 'O IlflbDf^, o mu^'^c ftij f^tf^"* /Jtov *m9 2<tf mc yoLp i/mttct »i

xryomt *rw Truma. xri^nrrof kmj tov M^mn ttea-fjtn tsftUy pdfA» *nf i/io? w% t9')^vpvt^tl9
T0V n«rp«C) «XA* uTto^gu^npcfj luu tovto xiyoftiv mnm irubofAmu u/rwri, ic t. a. Cont.
C«kk lib. viii. ^ 14. 15. toni. i. pp. 7d2, 3.

' 8«e bit Commeut ia Matth- torn. 15. § 10. Op. torn* 3. p. 665-, and ComDent
in Jobann. torn. 18. § 2.5. Op. torn. 4. p. 235.« and lb. torn. 83. 4 18. p. 451.

s Paler tola aubfUntia eat. Filiaa Tero derivatio totiea et portio aicut ipae pro*
fitetor. Quia Pater major me eat. Adv. Praz« c 9.

* <OrA ow Myti i yv**** ovt iMtfrn e uk* juu ^{f^r^n e viec. /m iw Mi%mrvnTA cv-

•Tu MfBpa$r6( ytyvm f*»t(m dunw xtyv to? UtvnfA. A'yyet Ji m tm n«<rpoc /^oc mnw »-
tu. De Incern. % 4. toro. i. pt. S. p. 873.

' K> w 6m(/ A9>oc . . . «v»r%)OC /ui? Ar9MMiDT»<rc(, «( ptvu %m a«/ vi6(. w% dtmfxm^m
iktMU*n» ut%rv yin^M /eic«r,^ i'uL t« diAmmftv. Tcey^ifri *<>^ fcf laariur, i im*Hmt

Ko Dtvnni ivFoniCAifT. 241

And 90 Augustine,* Ambroee,' and others have explained it.

Many^ however, maintain the opinion that it refers to the di-
vine nature of Christ, and is intended to show the priority of or-
der in the Father as the Original from whom the oon was gene-
rated; and, strange to say, this view is advocated by both the
Fathers from whom we have just quoted, Athanasius and Cyril,
in other parts of their works. Thus Athanasius says, — ** For on
this account it was that the Son himself did not say, * My Father
is superior to me,' lest any one should suppose that he was of a
different nature to him, but he said, * greater y^ not indeed in
magnitude nor time, but on account of his generation from the
Father; nevertheless, even in saying be is greater, he showed
the quality of the essence.***

And Cyril, — " The Son, therefore, being equal with the Father
as it respects his essence, and like to him in all points, says, that
the Father is greater, as being without beginning, he himself
having a beginning only as it respects his generation, although
he has a similar subsistence with him.*'* In the context,^ how-
ever, he gives the other explanation, viz. that these words are to
be understood only with reference to the human nature of Christ.

All these amply show how utterly destitute the Fathers were
of any traditive interpretation of the text.

Among the others who have considered this passage as apply-
ing to the divine nature of the Son may be mentioned Basil,
Gregory Nazianzen, and Elpiphanius."

Even in such texts as —

(4.) Phil, il 6. Who being in the form of God thought it not
robbery [as our translation runs] to be equal with God — we find
patristical authority for an unorthodox interpretation.

These words have been used as evidenee in the controversies

(btw WTir Ov iMm y*f m vw n4T#oc. xata •jA*n n wcia *tmnoVt luu utvra, irm ivuuf
*n »o9^0urwf, flv fXfl&rTo<r<v wau ^0*1 S^ul to asApmrtttn. Cyril. Alex. De recta fide ad
Tbeodot. c 28. Op. torn. v. Pt. % p. 2d. ed. Auberti.

1 De Trio. lib. ii. cc 6 and 7.

« De fide. lib. ii. c 4.

9 A/A TovTO yof tuu cu/Toc 0 vioc ooK ufuxtft 0 Tldump iMU Kfur^m »ou f 0^<ir, im fn$ ^tnv
tit Tvc Mf/rev pv9*eK mnof throXAQot' tiXKAjjtofen 'tra, w (AtyiAu rtfi^ onSi X^9m, «AA«t
iU Tit*^ *urw «TW n«tTp©c ymno-tr !TM»? otj iuu 0 rm urw, (jut^w %a^t9t oJWf • iraxtv
fw ir»c ovff-Mc ti^umna* Athakas. Orat 1. Gontr. Ariao. § 68. torn. i. pp. 468, 3.
And aee his Ueatiee De Synod. § 38. torn. i. Pt. 2. ^ 746.

inn A, /uai^erA.«VTep pt^a-n «c «u«fX^. i^^ ^X** tuuTAuovof *ro t^: ou^ u luu vvv^fouw
0vrm *m ufra^a *x^ Theeanrut, c« 11. Op. torn. ▼. Pu 1. pp. 86, 6.

s8ee pp. 86, 86 and 91.

< See theae and seTeral others in Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Art 1, who
takes this View of the text. Forbes snpporu, and likewue from the Fathers, the
opinion that it refers to the human nature, and denies that it can haTO any refer-
CDoe to the ditine. (Instraet Hist. Theelog. lib. i. c 26^) Many modem 00m-
aentators, as Lampe, consider it as spoken in reference to the complex person of
the Me^ator, in which the divine and human natnres waro wiitsd.
VOUL X

242 FATBtfTtCAL TRAOtTiaH

respectiiw the divinity ofour Lord in preciaelj oppoaite ugniBca*
tioDS. UpoD referring to tbe Faltien respecting thenit what do
we find t Exacll; the same diHcrepancy.

Among the Ante-Nicene Fathers (with the exception of Novn-
tian, whom X shall quote presently) 1 have not found any explana-
tion of the parage Buch as can certify us of the way in which tbe
words were understood, as the passages in which they are quoted
give them merely in the form of a literal translation.'

For the orthodox sense we may refer to Chrysoetom,' Tbeodo-
retj' Augustine,* and many others.

While on tbe other hand, as we have already seen, the unor*
thodoz interpretation k evidently given to this passage by Mova-
tian, who interprets it as meaning, " he did not think it fell to his
lot to be equal with God. For, although be remembered that tie
was God of God the Father, he never either compared or Ulcened
himself to God (he Father," &c.'

This was tbe interpretation given to this passage by Arius, who,
as Chrysostom tells ns, explained it thug, " being in tbe form of
God be did not take it to himself to be equal with God."*

Other instances, in pointy of less importance, the reader will
find in the comments of the Father upon Gen. vi. 2, 4. Mark [xiii.
32. 1 Peter iii. 19. iv. 6. In the first of these he will find tbe
authors of tbe first three centuries unanimously interpreting it
of tbe angels, while others in the fourth and fifth have no hesita-
tion in denouncing such an interpretation aa ignorant and absurd.

These instances are adduced merely as a specimen, but any
inquirer into this matter will find that (hey am>rd a fair sample
of the general stale of the case, and that tne notion of there be-
ing any traditive interpretation of Scripture common to the catho-
lic Fathers is perfectly unfounded and contrary to the plain facts
of the case. In all passtiges where there is any difficulty, the
Fathers are sure to be opposed to each other in their interprete-

I Tha* TarlDll. Adv. Pnz. c 7. Adr. Marc lib. t. e. 30. tad De ntarr.
e. 6.
[nioc
[nloc

[lonlr. Haiimin. lib. 1. e. 6.

DeTriQ. c. 17. 8wp.su abore. Ilia ramadubl* Ibal Dr. Barton, whan
If, in hii TcitimoDJea of tbe Aate-Niceae Fathan to tlia dirinilj of Cbiia t,
' ictnarki on Ibii leil, hai not alloded to thii nunga, tbongb he liaa qnolad
^nteil of it. (pp. ISS, 12fi, 138, 136. Sd. ad.) I bava not lefarred to lb«

piuage ha hia q doted (p. 124) from tba letter trrittea bj the clmrcheiof Vieona

apd LjoDi, preMrved bj Euaebiua (HiaL SccL t. i.), becanaa it appean to UM

ler; open to opp<uite jaterpralationa.

• B«n(i. e, AnuilsTiB /lefft Buu iratx.m mx if^an n laaiira eu. Chrja. in

loc In Phil. hom. 6. ^ 3. torn. zi. p. S3fi. On tha TMioua meamnga that btia

been givao to tbia puaage a»e Wolf ia loc

Ko DiviNa niFoBXAirr. tl4l

tions, and I may add they are often similarly opposed where there
appears no difficulty. We need only consult those commenta-
tors, who have given more fully the interpretations of the Fathers
to see the truth of this.^

Surely, then, we may say, as Bishop Patrick (our opponents'
witness) says of his Romish antagonist, <^ He knew, if he under*
stood anything^ there is no traditive interpretation of Scrip*
tureJ*^* And Bishop Taylor, ** It is said there are traditive inter-
pretations as well as traditive propositions, but these have not
much distinct consideration in them, both because their uncer-
tainty is as great as the other upon^ the former considerations, as
also because in very deed there are no such things as traditive
interpretations universal ; for as for particulars they signify no
more but that they are not sufficient determinations of questions
theoloeical ; therefore because they are particular, contingent,
and oi infinite variety, and they are no more argument than the
particular authority of those men whose commentaries they are,
and therefore must be considered with them."*

And so Placette, as translated and published by our Arch-
bishop Tenison, says,-^*' How little help there is for Scripture in
tradition appeareth hence, that it can no otherwise teach what
is the true sense of Scripture, but by the unjetnimous consent of
the Fathers, which whether it be to be had in any one text of
Scripture may be much doubted. It was a hard condition,
therefore, which Pope Pius IV. prescribed in his profession of faith
to all who desired admission into the Church of Rome, and which
m^j forever siknce all the JRomish commentators, * That they
will never receive nor interpret Scripture any otherwise than
according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.' Now I
would fain know ?iow this Law can be observed, since I may
confidently affirm that there is no one place of Scripture ex-
plained the same way by all the Fathers, For there are many
places which none of them have touched, and none which all
have interpreted. Nor will it suffice to say, that they agree who
have interpreted it, and that the silence of the rest is to be taken
for consent ; as if they must be supposed to consent who were
ignorant of such interpretations, or died perhaps before they were
made, or as if the antients were wont expressly to reject all in-
terpretations difierent from their own, or those might not be re-
jected, or at least others proposed, in those books of the Fathers
which are lost It is not enough, therefore, to have the consent

1 See pertieaUrijr Coroelios a Lapide, and Maldonataa ; and Dr. Whitbj'i Dift-
aertatio De 88. interpret aee. Patrain eomment. Load. 1714. 8vo. where many
aimilar initaneea are addaced.

> Anew, to Toachatone, p. 15*

^ Liberty of proph* % 5*

844 PATBUnCAL TBADunoir

of Ht few woiem we be amired of the coDCurreaceof tbe rest Bit
granting that it is, it cannot be denied, that our adyersariefl can
collect nothing certain out of any place of Scripture, if any one
of the antients have interpreted it otherwise. Hence Alphonsus
a Castro requireth, that among the necessary qualifications of a
text of Scripture to be produced for the conviction of heretic^
this be the chief, ' that it be so plain and undoubted, that none of
the sacred and approved doctors interpret it in some other sense,
according to which such a proposition cannot be thereby con*
vinced of heresy. ' But if this be true, how few places will there
be of whose sense we may not doubt 1 Certainly there are very
few explained the same way by all antient commentators . » . .
The anonymous writer of the * Treatise of the liberties of the
Gallican church' maintains that there are few places of Scrip-
ture which the holy Fathers have not differenUy interpreted.
As will also manifestly appear to any one who shall consult those
interpreters that are wont to produce the expositions of the an-
tient writers. Hence the reader may imagine /o what a strait
our adversaries would be reduced^ if they were tied up to
there own lawsy and allowed to urge no other places of Scripture
against us than what are unanimously interpreted by the Fathers
• . . . That the sense qf Scripture cannot be learned from
tradition hence uppeareth"^

And so lastly Dean Sherlock ; — << As for expounding Scripture
by the unanimous consent of primitive Fathers, this is indeed
the rule which the Council of Trent gives, and which their doc-
tors swear to observe. How well they keep this oath, they
ought to consider. Now as to this, you may tell them that you
would readily pay a great deference to the unanimous consent of
Fathers, could you tell how to know it ; and therefore in the first
place you desire to know the agreement of how many Fathers
makes an unanimous consent ; for you have been told, that there
has been as great variety in interpreting Scripture among
the antient Fathers as among our modem interpreters; that
there are very few, if any, controverted texts of Scripture
which are interpreted by an unanimous consent of all the Fathers.
If this unanimous consent then signify all the Fathers, we shall
be troubled to find such a consent in expounding Scripture.
Must it, then, be the unanimous consent of the greatest number
of Fathers? This will be a very hard thing, especially for un-
learned men to tell noses : we can know the opinion only of those
Fathers who were the writers in every age, and whose writings
have been preserved down to us ; and who can telii whether the
major number of those Fathers who did not write, or whose

i Incurable ■cepUcism of tht Church of Rome, c. )•

«i

KO mVIHS tlfFOBMANT* 245

writings are los^i were of the same mind with those whose writings
we have? And why must the major part be always the wisest
and best men f And if they were not, the consent of a few wise
men is to be preferred before great numbers of other expositors.
Again ask them, whether these Fathers were infallible or tradi-
tionary expositors of Scripture, or whether they expounded
Scripture according to their own private reason and judgment.
If they were infallible expositors and delivered the traditionary
sense and interpretation qf Scripture, it is a little strange
how they should differ in their expositions qf Scripture, . . .
If they expounded Scripture according to their oum reason
and Judgment, as rr is plait thbt did, then their authority is
no more sacred than their reason is ; and those are the best ex-
positors, whether antient or nrH>dern, whose expositions are backed
with the best reasons. We think it a great confirmation of our
faith that the Fathers of the church in the first and best ages
did believe the same doctrines, and expound Scripture in great
and concerning points, much to the same sense that we do, and
therefore we refuse not to appeal to themi, but yet we do not
wholly build our faith upon the authority of the Fathers, we for'
sake them J where they forsake the Scriptures y or put perverse
senses on them, .... There is no other way, then, left of un-
derstanding Scripture, but to expound it as we do other writings ;
by considering the signification and propriety of words and
phrases, the scope and context of the place, the reasons of things,
the analogy between the Old and New Testament, and the like.
fVhen they ' dispute with Protestants they can reasonably
pretend to no other way qf expounding Scripture, because
WR ADMIT OP KO oTHER.^'^ And SO clsewhcre on the general
question of doctrinal consent among the Fathers, when his op-
ponents had urged ^ how great and manifest" primitive consent
was *'to those good men who inquire," he sarcastically replies,
*• Yea, how great indeed, for nobody can find it but the Vicar
of Putney^*

Nay, what is the testimony of Origen, in the middle of the
third century? **Cel8us remarks," he says, << that they [i. e.
the earliest Christians] were lill of one mind ; not observing in
this, that ^om Me very beginning there were differences
among believers respecting the meaning of the books that
were believed to be divine;^* and further on, accounting for the

f

1 PT6Mnpadir« agtiDft Poptfy, Pt 1. pp. 53—4 ; or in Bp. Gibson'a Collec-
tion, TOl. 2.

s Vindication of Bifoonne of Notes of ehnrcb, in Bishop Gibson*s Preservtiive
«gsinst Popery, toI. i. Tit. 3. c. S. p. 55. Tlie allusion is to Sclster's ** Oonsen-
^ 80S Veterum.|'

X*

940 TAmmcAL TBAMnov

▼ariety of tec to among Cbristiansy of which Cekus had complainedy
he says that this arose ** from many of the learned among tbt
heathen being desirous of understanding the Christian foith,
from which it followed that from their understanding differently
the words which were believed by all to be divine> there aroee
heresies, taking their names from those who were struck with
the first principles of the word, but were somehow moved by
some probable reasons to entertain different views of it one from
another."*

Now this is clearly inconsistent with the notion of there being
any traditive interpretation of Scripture commonly received in
the church, and thought to be from the Apostles; for here it is
evident that the Scriptures were taken as the rule by which to
judge what (he Christian faith was, (which Origen mentions not
only without reprehension, but as coming in the natural course
of things,) and that from the different interpretations given to
the Scriptures (as was likely) by these learned heathen, there
arose various sects, and that he loiew no such cure for this as a
traditive interpretation of Scripture coming from the Apostles.
The utmost he pleads for as coming from the Apostles by suo-
cessional delivery, and which he evidently considers to be in
Scripture as well and as clearly, is the summary of the ele-
mentary articles of the faith above quoted. For had he held
the views of our opponents, he would have thrown the blame
of those divisions upon their authors not having followed this
traditive interpretation derived from the Apostles, whereas it is
evident that he had no notion of the existence of this infallible
guide, but seeing that men would come with all manner of pre-
conceived views and prejudices to the revelation God had made
of the truth in the written word, he held it to follow as a mat-
ter of course, that many different views would be taken of it,
and that such variety of sentiment ought not ^o be laid to the
charge of Christianity.

Ify then, there was no such interpretation having a claim upon
men to be received as their guide in the earliest times of the
church, how much less can there be anything having such pre-
tensions at the present day.

When, therefore, our opponents send us to the Fathers to learn
from their consentient interpretation of Scripture what is its true
meaning, they are sending us to that which has no existence, and

furofr Buoit uyci At&ijoit nl^x^f* ytyomn im$mmt tm mr^mtmnn, Gontr. Celt. lib. iii.
$ 11. torn. i. p. 4&3.

xwOvrif iltupofm wlt^AfAtfm *rovf a/m, Tttun <rwT«/6iw*c «»*< Bvmk ^o>m>(» f* ><n#6m
AiMotic wwfvfAWf tm wfAMjfMnm fciv vur tw ytryw ffX^* tuttAwnm /* omK frtr' mn
uirt Tirm ^Maormm ffipoc tac ut 4CAA»x*w iui$muit. Origen. Contr. Celt. lib. iii. ^ IS.
torn. i. p- 4M, 6.

iK> Mvnia cffVMUUirT* $47*

to a search in whkb^ if it be not most laborious and eztendedy
ve are very liable to be misled in inferring consent from the tes-
tioK>ny of a few, (as our opponents have been, as I shall show
presently), and in which, after all, it is next to impossible to ar«
rive at any certainty ; and yet this ^* consent" is proposed to us
as part of the rule of faith, without which we cannot be sure
what is the meaning of Scripture, even on the noost fundamental
points.

What then, I would ask^ must be the consequence, where
their system is received, and men go to the Fathers truly and
impartially to ascertain what they have delivered, and find that
there is hardly a single doctrine or text about which there is
consent, even in the few that remain to us 7 Clearly this, that
men will feel that there is no certainty to be had with respect
to any one doctrine of Christianity ; and thus he who begins
with the Scriptures, as interpreted by the consent of all the Fa-
thers, may end in neglecting both. Their system may look very
well in, theory, and may please very well those who are satisfied
to pin their faith upon the representations of others, and accept
a few quotations from four or five Fathers as proving the con*
sent of the whole primitive church, but the moment you bring
it fairly and fully to the test, its unsoundness is betrayed* It
falls to pieces at once.

And I will venture to add, that of those, who have shown the
most intimate acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers,
there have been but few who have not practically confessed this
to be the case.

But it may be urged, that there are some cases in which the
Fathers expressly claim to be considered as delivering the doc-
trine preached by the Apostles, and consequently that in such a
case we are bound to believe their statements.

It is, therefore, important to show further, that doctrines,
statements, and practices, were not unfrequently maintained by
primitive Fathers as having come from the Apostles, and were
called apostolical traditions, which were opposed by other Fa-
thers, and which consequently, upon our opponents' own princi-
ples, cannot demand our belief as having proceeded from the
Apostles; from which we may safely conclude, as in the former
case, that the testimony of a few of the primitive Fathers to
such tradition, even though it be not opposed by the writings
that happen to remain to us, is an utterly insufficient j^roq/* of
its apostolicity.

As instances of this nature I would notice,—-
(1.) The doctrine of the Millennium.

It is confidently delivered to us by the principal Fathers of the
first two centuries and a half, uncontradicted by the others

t48 vATSimcAL nAMtioir

we pcMseas of that period, that the Apostles affirmed that At
Christ's second coining there should be a resurrection of the just
to a life of jojand happiness upon earthy where they should live
with Christ for a thousand years, previous to the general resur-
rection and the final judgmetit

This, I admit, they attempted to prove, partly from Scripture;
but they also claimed an Apostolical tradition in its favour.
Thus IrensBus says,— ^ The above-mentioned blessing belongs
undeniably to the times of the kingdom, when the just shall rise
from the clead and reign, when the creation, renovated and freed

Sfrom the curse], shall brings forth abundantly of all kinds of
(ood, from the dew of heaven and the fertility of the earth; as
the Presbyters, who saw John^ the disciple of the Lord^ have
related that they heard from him in accordance with what
the Lord taught concerning those times, and said, ' The days
shall come in which vines shall spring up, having each ten thou-
sand branches,* &c. . . . These things also Papias, a hearer
of John, and who became the companion of Polycarp, a man
of antient times, witnesses in writing in the fourth of his books;
for there were five books written by him."* And again ;—
" Then, as the Presbyters say, shall those who are worthy of
dwelling in heaven depart thither; and others shall enjoy the
delights of paradise; and others shall possess the beauty of the
city; for everywhere shall the Saviour be beheld according as
those who see him shall be worthy." . • . **That this is the
arrangement and classification of those who are saved. Me JPre«-
byters, the disciples of the •dpostles, tell us, and that they ad-
vance through such stages ; and ascend through the Spirit to
the Son, and through the Son to the Father; the Son finally
eiving up to the Father his own creation, as also it is said by the
Apostle." [referring to 1 C6r. xv. 25, 6.]"

^ PradicU iUque benedictio €d tempora RegDi sioe contradictione pertinet,
qoando regnabont jusli iurgentet a fnortuis: quando et creatura renovata et libe-
rata multUudinem fructificabit uniTerMD esciB» ex rore cceli et ex fertilitate terne :
quemadmodam Pretbyteri meminerant, qui Jobannem discipnlam Domini vide*
rant, aadiite te ab eo, qaemadmodam de temporiboa ilUa docebat Dominus, et
dicebat : * Venieot dies in quibas Tines naacentar, singuUi decern roillia palmi*
turn babentea/ &c. . . . T«(vta /i juu Tldtaruis Imdnw fjio ojuvTVHd TloxviULfrrbv /«

ytip m/xm irvn moKm. 9vrt¥T0,yyMfU Iren. Ad? . her. lib. v, c. 33. (ed. MaM. p. 333.)

Hanc etae adordinationem et dispoaitionem eorum qui aaWsotur dicunt Preabjteri
Apoatolorum diacipuli, et per bnjnedkodi gradus proficere, et per Spiritum quidem
{ad] Filium, per Filium autem aeeendere ad Patrem, Filio deincepe cedente Petri
opus auum, qaemadmodum et ab Apoatolo dictum eat. [1 Cor. zt. 26, 6.]"
lb. c. 36. (p. 337.)

NO PIVIXB IMFOWtUkm. S49

From these panages it appears, that this doctrine was delivered
as an Apostolical tradition, not upon the authority of Papias only,
as is sometimes stated, but of others, who were also the imme<u*
ate disciples of the Apostles. And as it respects Papias, there
seems no reason wh j we should question his capability to transmit
what he had heard more -than that of any other of the Fathers.
Let us hear what he says as to the means of inlbrmation he had,
and the use he made of them ; — *^ I will not be backward^'' he
says, *< toset down in order for you, with the interpretations! those
things which I formerly fully learnt from thepresbyters, and well
remembered,^ confirming the truth delivered oy them* For I am
not accustomed, as most, to delight in those that talk much, but
in those that teach the truth ; nor in those that relate strange
precepts, but in those that relate the precepts really given by the
Lord, and that proceed from truth itself. And if any where I met
with any one who had conversed with the elders, L inquired dili-

fently after the sayings of the elders, what Andrew or what
^eter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, or James^ or what
John or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and
what things Aristion and John the elder (or, presbyter), the dis-
ciples of our Lord, say. For I thought that the accounts given
in books could not profit me so much as what I might hear from
the mouth of those yet living and remaining in the world.'"

And although Eusebius says, that, judging from his books, he
was a man of very narrow understanding, yet this censure has
not much weight when it comes from one strongly opposed to him
in the doctrines he there stated, especially when it is admitted,
as Eusebius is obliged to admit, that he induced very many, of
whom Irenaeus is mentioned as one, to embrace the Millennarian
doctrine, for Ireuaeus certainly was a better judge of his qualifica-
tions than Eusebius. And when Eusebius mentions as the cause
of his error, his having understood those statements literally which
were to be understocNJ figuratively, (upon which, by the way, he
seems partly to infer the narrowness of his understanding,) he is
in fact assuming the very point in question, and charging that as
a fault upon Papias, which Irenseus, Justin, and others, whom no
man pretends to accuse of a want of understanding, stoutly de-
fend.'

1 'Oa-a vvtt w^p4i rmf itpurfiiifr^m s«x«c %u«tdoy jmu wtxm %unfMnu9tk.

9 pAriJi fragm. in Boseb. Hist Bed. lib. iii. c. ult anu in RoaUi,Retiq. 8. voL
I. p. 8.

9 The words of Euiebina are tbeee. K«/ «^x« h e m/toc vrry^^ti/^mi m •» «r«^*-
rHK A>f«^«(/ ut ttVTor vitovTA Ttf^ttTidfliTAi, fwrot^n nmt irgi^a/^ktt <rov Imnpot tuu iw-
mrtuiJiUtt eunovi ««i rtta «xx« fjtvBtMm<n^tfL, By ^U xm ypjmhL rnA fust rrm tnttrnm^

^ryfuttrt irpH mnm fAvrmmt u^^AtfA /m nm<»iwoT*. SM>« >«y Toi r/ciK^ «v ««r ftmr.

. tSO r ATMItnCAL TBADmOH

MoreoTery at this doctrine was matntained as one derived by
tucceflsional delivery from the Apostles, so was it more especially
defended as one supported by numerous testimonies of Scripture.

Thus Justin Martyr affirms that £zekiel and Isaiah and the
rest of the prophets maintain it ; and having quoted some pas-
sages, (viz. Isa. Jxv. 17 — ^25. and Psa. Ixxxix. 4,) he adds, ^< And
one of us, by name John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in the
revelation made to him, predicted that those that believe in our
Christ, should live a thousand years in Jerusalem, and that after
this should be the general, and, in short, the eternal resurruction
of all together with one accord, and the judgment, which also
our liOrd said, that they shall neither marry nor be given in
marriage, but shall be like the angels, being the children of the
Ck>d of the resurrection. [Luke xx. 35, 6. )"^

Similar evidence for the dactrine is still more largely adduced
by Irenseus, who quotes from more than a dozen books of Scrip-
ture in proof of it.' So Tertullian speaks of it as predicted both
by Ezekiel and St John.'

Further ; they maintain this doctrine with the greatest confi-
dence as the truth of God, and intimate that those who did not
receive it among the faithful were such as had been led astray in
the matter by the heretics. Thus Irenseus says,-— ^ The aforesaid
blessing, [viz. that of Jacob by Isaac,] undeniably belongs to the
times of the kingdom."* And again ; *' Such promises do most
clearly signify the feasting of the creature which God promises to
give in the kingdom of the just."' And again ; " These and all
other such things are undeniably spoken respecting the resurrec-
tion of the just."' And when introducing this subject, he attri-
butes the necessity of discussing it to the circumstance of some
having imbibed " heretical notions" on the point '* Since,'* he
says, *'some of those who are thought to be correct in their be-
liefs transffress the order of the promotion of the just, and are
ignorant of the steps by which they are gradually trained for the
incorruptible state, having in themselves heretical notions ;^ for

irpo^t&iJUtmuK, mnnf ot/y EJ^r«Mi luu u t<c axxoc ta hfA^UL ^ooy^r «tr«unf »f«> EutiB.
Hitt. Eecl. lib. iii. c. nit.

1 JusTiv. M. Dial, cum Trypb. § 81. ed. Ben. pp. 178, 9. (ed. 1686. p. 807.)

t See Imiv. Adv. her. lib. t. cc. 33 — 36.

'TcRTVLL. Adv. Merc. lib. iii.c. 24.

4 See p. S48 above.

sTalee itaqae promieeionee manifeetiieiine in Regno juttonun utiof creators
epalationem aignificant quam I)eaa repromittit miniftraturum ae. Usv. lib. ▼.
c. 34. (p. 334, ed. Maaa.)

* Hec enim [et] alia univeraa in reearrectionem joatoram aln'e controvereia
dicu aanU lb. c 36. (p. 335, ed. Maaa.)

7 Qnidam ex hia qoi patantor leeCe credidiaae.

' Haritieea eenena in ae habentee.

KO DIVIlfl UfF0SMA5T. 261

the heretics despising the work of God, and not believing in the

salvation of their flesh say that as soon as they are dead,

they go beyond the heavens and the Creator • • • They, there-
fore» who reject the resurrection altogether, and as far as is in
their power take it away^ what wonder is it if they do not know
the order of the resurrection ? • • . . Since, therefore, tfie opt'
nions of some are influenced by the discourses of the heretics^
and they are ignorant of the arrangements of God and the noystery
of the resurrection of the just, and of the kingdom which is the
commencement of the incorruptible state, by which kingdom
they who are worthy are habituated by degrees to enjoy com-
munion with God, it is necessary to speak concerning these
things," dtc.»

And thus also speaks Justin ; — <* Tell me,'' says Trypho, <' do
you affirm that this place Jerusalem is to be really reouilt, and
do you expect that your people shall be gathered together [there,]
and live happily with Christ, together with the patriarchs and
prophets, and those of our race, and those that became proselytes
before that your Christ came, or have you proceeded to affirm
these things that you might seem to overcome us in amiment?"
To which Justin replies, — *• 1 am not such a wretch, O Trypho,
as to speak differently to what I think. I have, therefore, al-
ready confessed to you, that I and many others are of this opin-
ion.' ... • But I have also told you that many even of those
Christians who are of pure and pious sentiments, do not acknow-
ledge this. For as to those who are called Christians, but are
in reality atheists and impious heretics, I have shown you that in
all things they teach bla8phenH>us, and inBdel, and absurd doc-
trines For I am resolved to follow — not men or human

doctrines, but — God, and the doctrines that come from him. For
if you fall in with some who are called Chrbtians, and who do
not confess this, but even dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and who say that
there is no resurrection of the dead, but that their souls as soon
as they die, are taken up into heaven, you must not suppose them
to be Christians. As neither would any one who rightly inquired
into the matter, affirm the Sadducees or the similar sects of the
Genistas and Meristae, and Galileans, and Hellenists, and Baptist-

1 TraDiferantar qooramdam sententis ab bsreticit sermooibaf.
' Ucv. Adv. h r r. lib. v. cc 84, 32. (pp. 830, 331. ed. Mms.)
3 Tbe words bere omitted are, «k »</ )r«rT«c wtrr^v^ Totire y#«M/<9or, wbich
aeem clearly corrupt. Tbirlbj conjectarea cria-Ti»0-6ai, wbich tbe BeDedictine Edi-
tor adopta, bat which doea not appear to remove the difficulty. Tbe aenience ap-
peara to me eTidently to require cri0^r«(fiid«, (which occura in the latter part of
the paragraph,) and then the aenae would be, *• aa alao we fully know that thia
wiU be."

S52 pATsnnGu. traditioiv

Pharisees, (and bear with me while I speak mj mind,) to be Jews,
but Jews and children of Abraham in name, and confessing God
with their lips, as Qod himself exclaimed, but haying their heart
far from him. But I, and all Christians altogether orthodox,^
know both that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and
a thousand years in Jerusalem built up, and beautified and en-
larged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest affirm.'"

Here, then, although (according to the reading of the copies
that remain to us, the correctness of which is doubted by many')
he admits that many Christians of pure and pious sentiments did
not hold this doctrine, yet he lays it down as certainly true, and
one which all those who were fully orthodox maintained ; and
he couples the denial of it with very serious heresies;

And to those already mentioned, we may add, as defenders of
this doctrine, among others, Nepos,^ Victorinus Petavionensis,'
Lactantiud,* Apollinarius Junior,^ and Sulpicius Severus,* to
which some add even the Nicene Council.*

Moreover, as we have the testimony of Eusebius, quoted above,
to the number of those who embrace this doctrine, so we have a
similar testimony from Jerome, who says that though he did not
adopt the doctrine, yet he could not condemn it, because many
members of the church and martyrs had maintained it ;^^ and

1 Evi A »Ai If rtftc tf«v ofdtymfjttnc lut/m irarrti XtisruurM. '
> Dial, ctm Try ph. § 80. ed. Ben. pp. 177, 8. (ed. 1686. p. 306.)
s It has been thought by many, that instead of iroxxovt i' tfv nfiu tta mt xaBapaf
»4i w^tfiwf omn X^rrutfctf yttifAMt, we should read irtKk^vt ^* av tttu rm /un th lue*
Bafmct »* r. x. which certainly would suit the context better, but is an emendation
hardly admissible on conjecture. Archbishop Tillotson, however, in his ** Rule
of faith,*' pleads strongly for it ; and he supposes the passage here referred to by
Justin, to be that occurring in § 35. pp. 132, 3. (ed. 1686. p. 253.) The words
of Irensus, howcTer, quoted p. 250 above, (note 7,) support the reading of the
M8S.
4 See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 24. and Hieron. De vir. illustr. c. 69.

6 See Hieron. De vir. ill. c 18. and Fragm. op. De fabr. mandi, in Cave, Hist.
Lit. sub. nom.

« See Inst. vii. 24. and Epit. § 1 1. and Hieron. De vir. ill. c. 18.

7 See Hieron. De vir. ill. c 18. and Gomm. in In. in Pr»f. ml lib. 18. Basil.
Ep. 263. ed. Ben. (al. 74.)

8 See Hieron. Comm. in Ezech. c. 86.

9 Their Words, according to Gelasius Cyzicenus, were these ; — ** Wherefore we
expect new heavens and a new earth, according to the Holy Scriptures, when the
appearance and kingdom of the g^at God and our Saviour, Jesus Chrut, is mani*
fested to us ; and then, as Daniel says, the saints of the most high shall take the
kingdom, and the earth shall be pure, a holy earth of the living, and not of the
dead ; which David foreseeing, by the eye of faith, exclaims, I believe that I
shall see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living, the land of the meek
and humble* For < blessed,' saith he, ' are the meek, for they shall inherit the
earth/ And the Prophet, ' The feet of the meek and humble,' saith he, < shall
tread upon it.* " Gelas. Cyzic, AcU Gone Nic P. 2. c 31. ^ 8. pp. 156, 7. ed.
1599.

10 Qua lioeC noa soqaamar ttOMUi danuiam non poMunui, quia malti Ecclati-

j

MO mvm tnvoBMAirr. 253

he admits that the majority of the Westero Church in his part
of the world maintaioed it ; and that so earnestly, as to be in-
dignant with those who denied it*

It is impossible^ theuy to deny that the testimony in favour of
thb doctrine, as an Apostolical tradition, is such as can be addu-
ced for hardly any other; and by the earliest Fathers it is deliv-
ered to us as one which it savours strongly of heresy to deny.
They deliver it to us as the undeniable sense of Scripture, and
as confirmed by a testimony coming to them by successional de-
livery from the oral teaching of the Apostles.

Nor is it till we come to the middle of the third century, that
we find any record of any person of note in the church opposing
it.' About that time we find, by an incidental notice of the work
in Eusebius' and Jerome,^- that Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a
book against it, in refutation of one by Nepos, according to
Eusebius, or, as Jerome says, against Irenaeus; and was answer-
ed by Apollinarius, who (as Jerome tells us in the passage above
quoted,^) was followed in this point by nrK)st of the Western
Church in Jerome's part of the world. And after this period
we find most of the authors that remain to us opposing, and even
ridiculing, the doctrine."

ssUcoram virorum et martyret ista dUerunt ' Etannaqaiflqae in buo senta aban-
det, et Domioi concta judicio reserventur. HixRoir. Comin. in Hiei^m. c 19.
Tom. Iv. col. 975, 6. ed. Vail. Ven.

1 De repromiMionibas futarorum, quompdo debeant accipi, et qaa ratione in«
telligenda ait Apocalypeia Jobannis, quam ti jaxta literam accipimns, judaizan-
dom eit, si spiritaaliter at icripta eat diMerimas, muhorum veterum videbimnr
opinionibaa contraire. Latinoram, TertuUiani, Victorini, Lactantii ; Orsoorum,
ut csteroa pnetermlttam, Irenei tantum Lugd. Epiac. faciam roentionem, adver«
anm qoem vir eloquenttaeimua Dionyi>ia8 A lexandrios Ecdesie pontifez elegant*'
em acribit Hbrom, irridena, miile annornm fabalam . . Cai duobaa voluminiboa
reapondet Apollinarioa, quern non tolum tua tecta hominet ted et noitrorum, in
hac parte dumtaxatf plurima teguitur tnuUitudo, ut prataga mente Jam cemamf
quantorum in me rabiet concitanda sit, ^Hieron. Comm. in la. in Pref. ad libr.
18. Tom. iT. col. 767, 1. ed. Vail. Vea.

2 Unleaa we tbink that the answer of the relations of onr Lord to Bomitian,
when questioned concerning the future kiagdom of Christ, is pertinent to this
matter ; and it certainly appears to me worthy of obserTation, in connexion with
it. " Being asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, what it would be, and
when and where it waa to appear, they answered that it waa not mundane or
earthly, but heavenly and angelical ; and would be at the end of the world, when
be should come in glory and judge the quick and the dead, and give to each ac-
cording to his works." (Epamtrretf S^tmpt rou Xpt^rov jmi mt &tTikUA( avrouy oiroMC
ri( iPf, juu ww% iuu wot 9dt9iiToiuMHi Xe>«v ^owtu, tt( ou KM'/uinui ^ly ouS'i vriyvod troupavut

^imrTAs MM rvipwtt fuu ganimru vuM^m mmtol ta nrenhufAdi/rA duu*tw» EvscB. Hist.
£ccl. iii. 30.)

s EuacB. Hiat. Eccl. Kb. vii. c 24. ; and see lib. iii. c. 28.

4 HiBEov. Comm. in Is. in Praf. ad fibr. 18.

t See the preceding page.

B 8ee EusBB. \% c ulu Hismoir. in loc cit et paaaim. Tbboboebt. Hereto
Fab. lib. 2. c 8. torn. 4. p. 830. ed. BcIIiiIm; db«. 4c.

VOL«k t

95i Pj^mitnCAL TBADITIOir

Now I will not enter upon the quostion whether this doctrine
is true or false, for that might seem to involve a determinHtioq
of the very point in dispute; nor will I press the argumenfum
ad honUnem against our opponents^ as not receiving what has
such witness in its favour» because they may justly take refuge
in the admissions of Justin and Irenaeus, that there were those
among Christians who did not embrace it^ as showing that there
was not catholic consent for it But the conclusion (the, as it
appears to me^ irrefragable' conclusion) that I draw from it is
this. That a doctrine may be put forth as the indubitably cor-
rect interpretation of Scripture, and an Apostolical tradition, by
a great number of the most esteemed Fathers, and consequently
might bear to us the appearance of having the catholic consent
of the early church in its favour, (judging, as our opponents do,
by the few remains we happen to possess,) which was really but
the view taken by a portion of the church; and moreover, that
what seems, if we are to judge with certainty from the few
authors that remain to us, to have. been the prevailing doctrine
of. the church for a long period, and received as one handed
down by a successional delivery from the oral teaching of the
Apostles, may afterwards have been so repudiated by the great
majority, that you can barely find a supporter of it, and will
generally see it loaded with jobloquy; and therefore either that
it was not really the prevailing doctrine, or that the prevailing
doctrine became corrupted at too early a period for us to know
precisely, from the works that remain to us, what it was.

To this case Mr. Newman has alluded ; and his mode of get-
ting over the difficulty, is by assuming that " the early opinions
concerning the Millennium," " probably in no slight degree"
"originated in a misunderstanding of Scripture ;"^ an assump-
tion which, after the extracts given above, needs no reply; and
which, if true, docs not help his cause in the least ; for though
it was held to be supported by Scripture, it was handed down as
also an oral Apostolical tradition; and he thinks that at any
rate " such local rumours about matters of fact cannot be put on
a level with catholic tradition concerning matters of doctrine.""
Now the notion is new to me that a doctrine is more easily hand-
ed down than a fact; and the point now under consideration is,
as it appears to me, a doctrine. Tt certainly was so propounded
by Irenaeus and Justin. And I would ask, " what matter of doc-
trine has a tradition in its favour, during thiS earliest times of the
church, so catholic as this ? Mr. Newman adds, — " Certainly
in Egypt in the third century they seem to have had their origin
in a misconstruction of Scripture. Euseb. Hist. vii. 24."' I can

>L«ctp.803. 'lb. 3 lb.

no Divnm nnrosiuiiT. MS

see DothiDg more^ however, ih thk pdsfiage, than that thoee who
supported the doctrioe, supported it, as Justin and Irenaeus did
before thenn by testimonies of Scripture ; believing those testi-
monies to be the proper proofs of all doctrines, even at that
early period ; and 1 would particularly commend to Mr. New-
man's observation the account there given us by Dionysius of
Alexandria of a disputation he held with some of those who were
attached to this doctrine ; in which he tells us, in praise of bis
opponents, that they, *^ acting most conscientiously and sincere-
ly, and with hearts laid open to God's view» fully received those
things that were established by precis and testimonies taken
from the Holy ScripturesJ^^

The two next cases I would notice, are instances of unfounded
claims to Apostolical tradition, on points connected with the
rites of the church ; namely, respecting the time of observing
Easter, and the re-baptization of those baptized by heretics.

I would point out, then, on this head, —

(2. ) The disputes respecting the time of observing Easter.

The account of this matter is preserved to us by Eusebius,
who tells us that towards the close of the second century " no
small controversy being raised, because the churches (wmftxims)
of all Asia supposed, Rs/rom a more antient iraditioris that
they ought to observe the fourteenth day of the Moon as the
salutary feast of Easter, being the day on which the Jews were
commanded to kill the lamb; and that they ought always on
that day, on whatever day of the week It might happen, to ter-
minate their fastings ; when^ nevertheless, it w^ not the custom
of the churches over the rest of the whole world to celebrate it
in this manner, who observed the custom derived from apostoli-
cal tradition, and still prevailing ; viz., that they ought not to
put an end to their fastings on any other ^ay but tb^t of the
resurrection of our Saviour ; >upon this account synods and as-
semblies of bishops met And all of them with one consent, did
by their letters certify their brethren everywhere of the eccle-
siastical decree ; viz., that the mystery of our Lord's resurrec-
tion should never be celebrated cm any pther day but Sunday ;
and that on that day only we should observe to terminate the fast
before Easter. There is at this time extant the decree {vfuPn)
of those who then were assembled in Palestine, over whom The-
ophilus, bishop of the church in Cesarea, and Narcissus^ bishop
of that in Jerusalem, presided. In like manner, also, another of
those assembled at Rome concerning the same question, showing
that its bishop at that time was Victor. Also of the bishops in
Pontus, over whom Palmas, as being the most antient, presided.

> 8m the ptfMge quoted below, eh« 10. «Dder ** DhNiylliw of Alexandria.'*

SM

T^ravmcAL TUDmm

Alio of tte churobes in GkilKa, of which IrenMu was bishop.
Moreover, of those in Osdroenoa and the cities there^ and a pri"
vate letter of Bachyllus, bishop of the church of the Corinthians ;
and of most others also ; all oi whom having uttered one and the
same opinion and sentiment, gave the same judgment ; and this
we have mentioned was their unanimous determination."^

But, on the other hand, when this judgment was communicated
to the churches of Asia, they, as Eusebius tells us, ** stoutly
maintained that they ought to observe the custom that came to
them by antient tradition;"' and their bishop, Polycrates, wrote
back to Victor, bishop of Rome, as follows ; — ** We therefore,'*
he says, << observe the true day unaltered, having neither added
to nor taken from [what has been delivered to us]. For in Asia
lie the great seeds (rr«i;^ri«i) [of the church], who shall rise in
the day of the Lord's advent, in which he shall come from heaven
with glory, and raise all the saints: viz., Philip, one of the twelve
Apostles who died at Hiera polls, and his two daughters that lived
to a great age as virgins, and his other daughter who possessed,
during her life, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, who rests at
Ephesus. And nH>reover John, who reposed on the bosom of our
Lord, who became a priest, and wore a golden plate, who was
also a martyr and a teacher. He died at Ephesus. Moreover,
also, Polycarp the bishop and martyr of Smyrna. And Thra-
seas, the bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who died at Smyrna.
And why need 1 mention Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who died
at Laodicea ? Moreover, the blessed Papirius also ; and Melito
the eunuch, who enjoyed the peculiar gifts of the Holy Spirit
during the whole of his life, whib lies at Sardis, awaiting the visi-
tation from heaven, in which he shall rise from the dead. These
all observed Easter on the fourteenth day^ according to the
Gospel ; transgressing in nothing, but walking strictly ac^
cording to the rule qf faith. And I also, the least of all of you,
Polycrates, [so act], according to the tradition of my relations,
some of whom I have followed. There were, indeed, seven
bishops related to me. And I am the eighth. And my relations
always observed the day when the people [i. e. the Jews] re-
moved the leaven. I therefore, brethren, being sixty-five years
old in the Lord, and having had communication with bre-
thren from all parts qf the world, and having read through
all the Holy Scriptures, am not alarmed at the threats directed
against me. For those who are greater than I, have said. It
behoves us to obey QoA, rather than men." And he adds after-
wards, that he had called together very many bishops to give

> Eoaeb. Hift. Ecd. lib. ▼. e. S3.
* BoMb. Hift Scd.Ub. t. c. S4.

"/

NO mVBIB INFOftllAXIT. W7

(heir opinion on the matter; and that they entirely approted of
what be bad written.^ And Irenaeus, in his letter to Victor, remibds
him that Polycarp had thus observed the day ; and» that when
he came to Kome, Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, who observed
the contrary practice, could not induce him to forsake it ; *^ inas-
much/' says IrensBUs, '* as be had always so observed it with John
the disciple of the Lord, and the rest of the Apostles, with whom
he had been conversant."'

, And the difference, as we learn from Irenseus, extended also to
the previous fast ; for he tells us that ** some think they ought to
fast one day; others, two; others, more."* And he thinks it
probable that the difference might arise from some* bishops being
negligent, and allowing that to go down to posterity as acus*
tomy which was introduced through simplicity and igno-
rance.*

Here, then, surely we have a remarkable instance how easily
even a practice might be introduced, under the name of an apos*
tolical tradition, which had no such sanction for it ; and this, as
Irenaeus thinks, niight arise, even in the second century^ from the
negligence of bishops allowing that to go down to posterity as a
custom, which was introduced through simplicity and ignorance ;
and ^bus the name of Apostolical tradition be pleaded for that
which was altogether abhorrent to the usages of the Apostles.
And, be it observed, that in the case before us, the evidence
(taking that which remains to us) appears to preponderate in fa-
vour of that usage which is not now followed.^

So that our learned Deap Comber remarks on this matter,
*' Though Binius's notes brag of Apostolical and universal tradi-
tion, the bishops of Asia produced a contrary tradition, and call-
ed it Apostolical, for keeping Easter at a different time ; which
shows how uncertain a ground tradition is for articles of
faithy when it varied so much in delivering down a practical
rite through little more than one century."^

Before we pass on, let us observe the way in which this whole
dispute is spoken of early in the fifth century, by one whose
<* peculiar judgment and diligence" are praised both by Valesius
and our own Cave,-^the historian Socrates. *' I think it not
unreasonable^" he says,'* to declare in short what comes into my

1 EuMb. H. E. lib. ▼. c. 34. t lb.

»Ib. 4 lb.

5 8e« fof Umf ptrUcQlarf relating to this matter, in Eptphan* Adv. bar. in bar.
70. §§ 9, 10, and Atbanat. Da Synod. Ariro. § 6. p. 719. (ed. Ben.) and Ep. ad,
African. Epiic. § 2. p. 892, wbere Atbanatiot acknowledges tbat the churches
of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia,^ at the time of the Nicene Council, all cele-
brated Easter at the time of the Jewish Passover.

« Roman Forgeries, p. 33. ; or in Bishop Gibson's Preserratife, vol. 3.

Y*

386 PATBimeAL tkaditioii

^.

mind concerning Easter. Neither the antiedts nor the moderns
who have studioiisiy followed the Jews had, in my judement, any

I'ust or rational cause of contending so much about this festivaL
""or they considered not with themselves that when the Jewish
religion was changed into Christianity, those accurate observan-
ces of the Mosaic law and the types of things future wholly
ceased. And this carries along with it its own demonstration.
For no one of Christ's laws has permitted the Christians to observe
the rites of the Jews. Moreover, on the contrary, the Apostle
has expressly forbid tbis^ and does not only reject circumcision,
but also advises against contending about festival days*
Wherefore, in his Epistle to the Gralatians, his words are these,
* Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the
Law?' [iv. 2L] And having spent some few words in his dis*
course hereof, he demonstrates that the people of the Jews are
servants, but that those who have ibilowed Christ are called to
liberty. Moreover it is his admonition that days, and months,
and years, should in no wise be observed. Besides, in his Epistle
to the Colossians, he does loudly affirm that such observations are
a shadow. Wherefore he says, * Let no man judge you in meat,
or in drink, or in respect of any holy day, or of the new moon, or
of the subbath days, which are a shadow of things to come.' [ii.
16, 17. J And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, this very Apostle
does coniirn) the same things in these words, * For the priesthood
being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the
Law.' [vii. 12.] The Jipostle therefore and the Gospels have
no where .imposed the yoke of servitude on those who have
approached the preaching of the fait hy but have left the feast
of Easter and the other festivals to be honoured by their grati"
tude and benevolence who have had benefits conferred upon
them on those days. Wherefore in regard men love festivals,
because thereon they have a cessation from their labours, each
person in every place according to his own pleasure has by a cer*
tain cuslotn celebrated the memory of the saving passion. For
neither our Saviour nor his •Apostles have eryoined us by any
law to observe this festival. Nor have the Gospels or the Jlpos-
ties threatened us with any mulcts punisnmentf or curse,
€ts the Mosaic Law does the Jews. For it is merely for the
history's sake, in order to a publishing of the reproach of the
Jews, because they polluted themselves with blood on their very
festivals, that it has been recorded in the gospels that our Saviour
suffered even on the days of unleavened bread. Moreover it was
not the Apostles' design to make laws concerning festival days,
but to introduce good life and piety. And it seems to noe, that as
many other things in several places have been established by
custom, 60 the feast of Easter^ also had a peculiar observation

amongst all penons ftwn Bome old amge, tn rq^d none qfihe
^poatles 09 I have said have made any determinate decree
aoaut it. Now that the observation of this festival bad its ori-
ginal amongst all men in tbe primitive times from custom ratber
than lawy tbe tbings tbemselves do demonstrate/' He tben
notices, as a proof, tbe great variety tbere was as to the time of
observing it, and adds, ** The Quartodecimans do affirm that
the observation of the fourteenth day of the moon was deliver*
ed to them by John the Apostle. But the Romans and those
in the western parts say^ that the usage in force with them
was delivered by the Jipostks Peter and Paul Notwithstand-
ing neither of these two parties can produce any written [or,
scaiPTURAL TissTUfONT tn Confirmation hereof*^

And having hence taken occasion to notice ''the difierent
usages of churches" respecting rites, particularly as to the time
and mode of fasting, be adds, ** •dnd in regard no one can pro-
duce a commanam writino [or, scripture] concerning this
things it is manifest that the t^postles left every one to his
own will and free choice in this casCf to the end that no per*
son might be compelled through fear or necessity to the per-
formance of what is good''^

Hence he proceeds to notice the variety in the time and mode
of conducting their religious assemblies, and respecting divers
ecclesiastical usages, the diversity of which according to the ac-
count be there gives is not a little remarkable, and thus con-
cludes,— ^** That there happened many differences upon this ac-
count even in the Apostles^ times, was a thing not unknown even
to the Apostles themselves, as the book of the Acts does attest.
For when the Apostles understood that a disturbance was raised
amongst the faithful by reason of a dissension of the Gentiles, be-
ing all met toeether, they promulged a divine law, drawing it up
in form of a Letter ; whereby they freed believers from a most
burthensome servitude and vain contention about these things,
and taught them a most exact way of living well which would
lead them to true piety, mentioning to them only such things as
necessarily ought to be observed ... . . For these are the ex-

f>ress words of the Letter, * It seemed good to the Holy Ghost to
ay upon you no greater burthen than these necessaries to be ob-
served.* Notwithstanding there are some who, disreea rding these
precepts, suppose all fornication to be a thing indifferent, but
contend about holy days^ as if it were for their lives. These
persons invert the commands qfGod^ and make laws for them-
selves ^ not valuing the decree of the Apostles^ nor do they con-
sider that they practise the contrary to those tbings which
* seemed good' to God."^

> Socrat. Scholatt. Hist Ecclei. lib. ?. c. S2. I have giTta thii ptwage accord-
!■§ to the EoiUth tranalatioD pubUihed with EoielNiif, dec Loud. 1709. fol.

MO rxnunoAi THADtTitui

Leaving tint passage to the careful couideratim of the reader,
and of the Tractaton more especially, I proceed to

(S) The questioD relating to the rebaptization of those bap>
tized by heretics.

A controversy arose on this subject in the middle of the third
century between Cyprian and Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and the
question, says Eusebius, was, " whether it was proper that those
who went over to the church from any heresy should be pui^ed
by baptism."'

Stephen, Bishop of Rome, held that " from whatever here-
ay" any one should go over to the church, havii^ been baptized
by the heretics with whom he had been associated, he should be
Hdmittcd by the imposition of hands,* iocluding even such here-
eies as those of Mnrcion, Valentinus and Apelles.*

Cyprian on the contrary held that those who had been baptized
out of the church among heretics or schismatics ought to be
baptized when they went over to the church, and that it was of
little use to lay hands upon them that Ihey might receive the
Holy Spirit, unless they also received the baptism of the church.*

The former opinion was defended by Stephen upon the ground
of its being an Apostolical tradition. " If any one," he says,
" shall have come over to us from any heresy, let no new prac-
tice be introduced, but that observed which was delivered (tradi-
tum], namely that there be imposition of hands for repentance."*
And we are told by Firmilian that he defended his opinion on the
ground that "the Apostles forbade that those who came over
from any heresy should be baptized^ and delivered this to posteri-
ty to be observed."'

And to this no doubt it is that Cyprian refers when he says, on
this subject,— "Nor let any one say, we follow that which we
have received from the Apostles, since the Apostles delivered

I EiJ'iM Toit if uarun cisi^'w; erM^wsmu /ia uvrfw iu9iufui. ^niH. Htat.
Eccl. vii. a.

, I Si quia ergo ■ qaicunqae bnre*! leoerit »i no*, nihil lnna>elur iiii>i qund
trtililnm ei(, ut mtnns illi impouttur in poniMniiam. CiL ■ G;pr. in Ep. 74,
a<] Pampcium.

> Cypr. Ep. 74, td Pomp.

t Goi qal linl foris aitr* Ecelanam tincti, el ipad bsretioM«t ichiunttica*

profiae aquB liba micuiati, qniiida ad noi itqo* *d Ecaluian>, qua ana oi,

'i oponett ; eo quod piram lit eii naiiDm imponere ti accipian-

QCtum niai ae^ipiinl M Ecclcaic baptlimutn. Cjtpt. Ep. TS, aJ

id parlioMt qnod Sbphanni dixit, qaati Apoaloli ao* qui ab
plaaiuim* «

19 pariiniii qnoa oHpnanm ami, qaaM Apoaioii ao* qi

iplitiri prohibunint. et boc eualodisndum pottari* iradidarint,
a* «M nip«ndiiti*> Firmii. Ep. ad Cjpr. InUr. Op. C/pr. Ep. 75.

I

HO Dirnm nrrovjuvr* Mi

that tb^a was only one cburch and one baftism.^^ And Emebi-
U8 tells us» that the reason of Stephen's anger waSt that be thought
it was not right to introduce any thing new and beyond the tra-
dition that had been in force from the beginning.'

The real state of the case was, that it was the custom at that
time in Romet and some other churches, and therefore was dig-
nified, as every other custom of that church was and is, with the
roost unscrupulous audacity, with the title of an Apostolical tra-
dition, such a name being well known to be with the multitude
an immediate passport to its reception ; but to which many of
the customs so observed even in the third century ^ as Firmilian
tells us,B had no right.

Now it is commonly represented, that on the other side the
chaise of innovation was admitted^ but that Cyprian, arguing
from Scripture, followed a practice which he admitted might be
new to the church. This notion, however, is altogether errone-
ous, as the statements of Cyprian and Firmilian, and others, fully
show.

Thus Cyprian says, that his opinion was '' not neWf but long
be/ore laid down by his predecessors^ and observed by himJ*^*
And again ; — " It is not a new or suddenly introduced tUng with
us, that we should hold that those who come over to the church
from heretics should be baptized, since it is many years and a
long period since a great number of bishops, meeting under
Aerippinus, a man whose memory is to be had in honour, decreed
this; and between that time and this many thousand heretics in
our provinces being converted to the church," have been bap-
tized/ And this decree of Agrippinus and the bishops who were
assembled with him, Cyprian says he followed, as being '* pious
and legitimate and salutfiry, and agreeable to the catholic jaith
and churchJ'^^ And be clearly denies the antiquity of the cos*
tom pleaded on the other side* For he says, — ** They say that
th^ follow in this antient custom, when among the antients

1 Nee quisquam dicat, quod accepimas «b Apoftolls hoo lequimur, qaaiulo
Apofltoli Don nisi unam EceMam tradiderant et baptisma QDam. Gypr. Ep. 73.

trtfjtuf oM^MC. vn rwrm ^ur^auvru, Evsxb. Hiat. EcoL tU. 8.

6 See Firmil. Ep. ad Cypr. Inter Cjpr. Ep. 75.

4 dententiam noetrani non noiram promimas, aed jam pridem ab anteceaBOfiboi
Boatria ttatQUoi et a nobia obaerratam. Cypr. Ep. 70. Ad Januariam.

* Apud noa aatera non nova ant repentina rea eat, qt baptiiandoa' cenaeamoa
eoa qui ab bsretieia ad Eecleaiaoi veniant, qoando mnlti jam andi aint et hmga
Btaa ex qao aab Agrippino bona memoris ^iro oonvenientea in onum epiaeopi
plarimi hoe atatiierint, atqoe exinde in bodieranm tot millia bareticoram in pro>
tineiia noatiia ad Eeeleaiam eon^ern non aapernati aint, dbc. . . * . ut layacii
▼italla et salotaria baptiami grattam conaequerentnr. Cypr. Ep. 78. Ad Jnbaian.

6 Qaornm aententiam et religloiam et legitimam et aalntarem fidei et Eccleafaa
Catholics eongraentem noa atiam aceoti aomua. Cypr. Ep. 71. A4 Qointum.

1'

202 TknumcAL ntiDinoir

were the first beginntegs of heresjr and schismSy do that they
formed the heretics, who departed from the church, and had
been previously baptized among us, whom when they returned
to the church as penitents it was not necessary to baptize. Which
we also observe at this day ; so that as it respects those whom
we know to have been baptized in the churchy and to have gone
over from us to the heretics^ if afterwards acknowledging their
ofience, and rejecting their error, they return to the truth and
their mother, (matricem) it is sufficient to lay hands upon them
for repentance/"

Such, also, is the testimony of every one of the eighty-seven
bishops convened on this matter by Cyprian, in the third Car-
thaginian synod. They one and all declare that the baptism of
heretics is altogether null and void ; and that not as men lay-
ing down any new rule on the subject, but merely as witnesses
to what had been a principle of the Christian faith from the be-
ginning. The testimonies of these bishops were given by each
separately, and are still to be seen in the works of Cyprian.'

The same testimony is borne by Dionysius of Alexandria, the
contemporary of Cyprian, who writing on this subject says, — ** I
have learnt this also, that it is not the case that now at this time
the Africans only have introduced this [as some appear to have
represented it was], but that long ago this opinion was main-
tained by the bishops before us in the most populotcs churches
and synods of the brethern at Iconium and Synada, and in
many places, whose determinations I cannot allow myself to
subvert, and throw them into strife and contention ; for it is said,
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmarks which thy
fathers have set."«

And lastly, Firmilian, who was Bishop of Csesarea in Cappa-
docia, still more plainly says, — " We to truth ^oin also custom,
and to the custom of the Romans oppose custom, but the cus-
tom of truth ; holding this to have been from the beginning which
was delivered by Christ and the Apostle* Nor do we recollect

> Et flicuDt M in hoc Tetereai coDsaetudiDem peqni ; qatndo apod vetere*
hareteos et ■cbitmatuin prima adhnc foerint iniiia, at hi Ulic eiMDt qai da B#-
deaia reeedebaiH, et hie baptizati prius fvarant : qooa tune tamen ad Ecdaatam
ravertentea et penitentiam agentea oeoeaae non erat baptisare. Qood noa qaoqoe
hodie observamas, ut quoa conatet hie baptixatoa eaae et a nobia ad haratiooa
trtoaioae, ai poatmodom peocato aao cognito et arrore digeata ad Teritatem et ma-
tricem redeant, aatia ait in paBniteotiam oaaoam imponera. Cypr. £p. 71. Ad
Quintnm.

s See Condi. Carthagin. De baptix. hnrat inter Op. Cjpriani.

3 MM/JiABntuL tuu TovTo, oTi fMMWf flip ^9p$MM fA§fw TOtfTo wtiftmytiyv, «XXA JUU 9rpc

loK tati alt>^9m ar Izofm juu 2w«/oir mu v«tf« iroKkoK tovto tlc^Ot m t^t BcvKAt avat^
ThiHrtn row « f9iyn uTrnvft r9v. EiraiB. Htft Eod. lib. tH. c 7.

X'

i

KO DIVINB IiNFOH]U!fr. t63

/Aa/ /Aiy Aafl? any beginning with ue, since it u>€ts always

observed here^ that we should acknowledge but one church of

Grod, and that we should reckon that only to be holy baptisin

which was of the holy church."^ And in this be speaks not as \

an individual, but as representing the sentiments of a synod of

bishops from the neighbouring parts assembled at Iconium."

So far, then, from admitting that their practice was a novelty
in the church, they stoutly maintained the antiquity of the cus*
tom. And certainly Tertullian was on their side of the ques*
tion, for in his Treatise on baptism written before his departure
from the church, be says, that the heretics, '' without doubt»
have not'' baptism ;' upon whieh the learned Pamelius remarks,
that it is impossible to deny (negare non possumus) that he was
of the same opinion as Cyprian, and that perhaps his Cheek
treatise on baptism in which this opinion was more fully
stated was on that account suppressed ; a plain confession of
bis opinion of the mode in which the writings of the primitive
church were dealt with by the dominant parties of after times.^

And such also appears to have been the opinion of Clement
of Alexandria.'^

But says Mr. Newman^ " Cyprian did not profe&s any ^pos»
tolical tradition on his side." (p. 204.) No doubt he did not
as far as their oral tradition was concerned; and the ques-
tion is, whether he did not herein show more sense and judgment
than those who did make a claim which they could not substan-
tiate. " The Roman Church," says Mr. Newman, ♦* rested her
doctrine simply on Apostolical Tradition," i. e. what she chose
to call so, being at most a supposed correct report of it by others ;
** which^^^ he adds, " by itself might fairly be taken as a suf
ficient witness in such a point J'* No doubt the Romish Church
is under |?reat obligations to Mr. Newman for his favourable judg-
ments of their reports of " Apostolical tradition ;" and on the
same ground he may add to these '* Apostolical traditions" the
worship of images, which Pope Adrian declared to the Second

1 Ccteram not Yeratati et consuetudinem jangimas, et consuetudini RomaDo-
ram coDiuetadinem, ted ▼eritatis, opponimas ; ab initio hoc tenentes quod a
Cbristo et ab Apoatolo traditum est. Nee meminimas, hoc apod nos aliquondo
ccBpisae, cam aemper istic obtervatam sit, ut non nisi onam Dei ecclesiam nosse*
mus, et sanctum haptisma non nisi sancta ecclesia computaremus. Firmil. ad
Cypr. Inter Cypr. £p. 75.

2 Plurimi sinral convenientet in Jconio diligentisMme tractatimas et confirma-
▼imas repudiandom esae omna omnino baptiama qaod sit extra Ecclesiam consti-
tutum. lb.

> Quern, [i. e. baptiamum] quum rite non habeant, sine dabio nan babent, nee
capit namerari qood non habetur ; ita nee poaaont accipere quia non habent.—
TsmTULL. De biipt. c 16.

« Vide Pamel. Annot. in Tertnll. p. 650. ed. Col. Agripp. 1617.

^ See Strom, lib. L f 19. p. 377. ed. Potter, (p. 817. ed. Sylbarg.)

\=

S04 lPATRIBtI04L TBADITION

Nicene Council that the Church of Rome had received by tradi*
turn from St Peter, fiut Cyprian thought diflferently, and there-
fiMre ventures to ask bow this claim can be verified. Whence*
saith he, is this tradition 7 Does it come from Scripture 7 For
God tells us to do that which is written.^ And he adds observa-
tions to which I shall have hereafter to call the attention of the
reader, showing that he held that the Scripture onlv could cer-
tify us assuredly of what the Apostles had delivered ; and that
what they had there delivered was (as he supposed) opposed t6
the practice defended by Stephen.

And Firmilian still more plainly ridicules this pretence of
'< Apostolical ti^dition." "That those," he says, "who are at
Rome do not in all things observe those things which were de-
livered from the beginning, and in vain pretend the authority
qf the JipostleSi anyone may know from hence^ that he may see
that there are among them some difierence respecting the cele-
bration of Easter, and respecting many other ordinances of di-
vine worship, and that all things are not alike observed there as
are observed at Jerusalem."*

The difference, then, between the two parties is just this; that
Stephen, in the true Romish spirit, boldly says. The custom which
we observe was laid down by the Apostles in their oral teaching,
and therefore ought to be observed ; just as bis successor Adrian
said to the Second Nicene Council respecting the worship of
images; while Cyprian and his party, while they maintain that
the argument from antiquity is, as far as it goes, in favour of their
practice, ground its claim to Apostolicity upon Scripture as the
chief and necessary and only sure evidence. And having both
those witnesses (as they supposed) with them, they willingly leave
Stephen and his party to boast of their knowledge of the oral
traditions of the Apostles, and Firmilian in particular tells him, it
is vain for him to pretend to it.

A more full and clear testimony (I would observe by the way)
in favour of the view'for which we contend, than is here present-
ed to us in the remarks of Cyprian and Firmilian, can hardly be
conceived.

But say our opponents ; — ^True, but this shows how the adop-
tion of such a view leads to error, for Cyprian was here in the
wrong.'

1 Unde est ifU traditio, Ac Cypr. Ep. 74. Ad Pomp. See the piMsge fuUj
quoted d>. 10 below.

> Eoe entem qui Ronw eunt non ea in omnibos obeenrere qac etot ab origine
tradiu ei fraitra Apoetolorain anctoritatem prstendere, acire qoia etiam iode po-
teat, qood circa celebrandoa diea peach* et circa dialta alia dinnc rei aacramenu
▼ideal eaaa apod illoa aliqnaa diYeraitatea, nee obaervari illic omnia sqnaliter qii»
Hierbaoiymia obeenranUir. Fiemil. Ep. ad Cypr. lot Cypr. Ep. 76.

9 See Newffltn'e Leetuiea, p. S06.

i

I
NO DIVINB IMFOKMATfT. 265

r

■%

Now in replying to this I will not stop to remark upon the in-
validity of this argument to decide between the principles upon
which each acted, but I pass on to ask this question, — Was Ste-
phen right 7 If not, then is the argument of our oppoaents from
this case in favour of their view cofnpletely overthrown ; aye, and
an additional reason afforded us for discrediting such claims as
that made by Stephen. The Apostles, said Stephen and the
Church of Rome of his day, ordered that from whatever heresy
any one should come over to the church, such a convert should
not be baptized, but only have hands laid upon him. But what
said the most eminent Councils aiid Fathers on this subject after*
wards? '< As to those that become Paulianists,'' saith the Coun-
cil of Nice, '^ and afterwards betake themselves to the Catholic
Oiurch, it has already been decreed that they be by all means
re-baptized."^ " They that turn from the heresy of the Phry-
gians," saith the Council of Laodicea, '' are with great care to be
catechised and baptized by the bishops and priests of the church,
though they were among their clergy, and were reckoned of the
first rank among them."* *' Those," saith the Council of Con-
stantinople, " who from among the heretics betake themselves to
orthodoxy and to the party of the saved, we receive according to
the order and custom subjoined ; viz. we receive the Arians,
Macedonians, &c., anathematizing all heresy ..... and hav-
ing anointed them with the sacred ointment we seal them, &c.
.... The Eunomians, who are baptized only with one immer*
sion, and the Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and the
Sabellians, who maintain the Father and S6n to be the same . .
. . and all other heretics^ for there are many of them here . .
• » all those of them who are willing to betake themselves to or-
thodoxy, we receive as we do the Greeks • • • we make them
continue a long tinr^e in the Church and hear the Scriptures, and
then we baptize them!^*

Similar directions are given to the 95tfa canon of the Sixth
, Council, (or the Trullan canops) the 8th canon of the Second
Nicene Council,, the 47th of the Apostolical canons, and the 1st
and 47th of the canons of Basil. The opinion of Basil,*^ indeed,
is almost wholly in favour of the view taken by Cyprian and Fir-
milian, whom be nnentions by name in his first canon, and ap-
parently as approving their determinations even with respect to

Bitsrrt^isem aunovf tfturmniC' Can. 19. Vide. Biblioih. J. C. Yet. ed. Voeli. et
Jnttell. torn. i. p. 84.

t Can. 8. lb. p. 60.

* Can. 7. lb. p. 58.

«8e4* Baiil. £p. ad Amphiloob. Ep. 188. (Op^toa. iii. |vp. S68— 700 «nd
Ep. 199. (ib^ pp. 296, 7.)

VOL.U Z

i<

1

366 PATBltTlCAL THADlTIOlf

tboee baptized by schismatics, though a6 the custom was diflerent
in different places, be holds it best that the custom of the place
should be followed. And as to those baptized by heretics, he ex-
pressly says, '< It has seemed good to the antients^om7Ae begin-
nings altogether to reject the baptism of heretics."^

And Atbanasius pronounces even the baptism of the Ariansas
well as that of the Manichees, the Phrygians, and tb^ Samosa-
tenians to be << altogether useless and unprofitable/'^ While the
4iotion of Augustine (and which has been very prevalent in the
Western Church since his time) seems to have been, that the
baptism of heretics was not valid f( not prpforined in the name of
the Three Persons of the Trinity, but that if so performed, it was
valid, whatever sentiments they might hold.'

What now becotoies of Stephen's '* •/^o^/o/tca/ tradition,^^
which Mr. Newman teHs us, ** might by itself fairly be taken as
a sufficient witness in such a point i"

And yet this very case is brought by our opponents as a proof
of the safety of being guided by ^ Apostolical tradition/' i. e^some
patristical report of it.

Be it observed, also, that Augustine, though he maintains that
the custom be followed was derived from Apostolical tradition,
maintains this upon grounds that are not trustworthy, and is
evidently conscious that his cause needed better support. For
he affirms this on two grounds, one, that it was a custom main-
tained by the universal church/ which is abundantly disproved
by the facts and statements referred to above; the other, that a
custom the institution of which could not be traced to those who
came after the Apostles ought to be considered Apostolical,^ on
which evidence of Apostolicity (not to sav that it was just as' ap-
plicable to the practice of Cyprian and his party, if tve may be-
lieve thetn* as to the opposite practice) Bishop Taylor justly re-
marks in the last work heAyrote, ** which in plain meaning is this,
we find a custom in the church, and We know not whence it
contes, and it is so in this as in many other things, and therefore,
let us think the best and beKeve it caihe by tradition from, the
Apostles ;" and again further on ;-t^'*' which kind of rule is some

I Efe^ TMC if *fX**^ ^^ f**' 'f^ •if^mtmt [i. e. j^fmffjtd] motifimc ^Binrmt, lb.
p. »69.

t XiArnxm utor km ttxi/tf-iTiXK. Orat 3. contr. Arian. ^ 48. p. 6i0. ed. BeD.
And see § 43. pp. 510» 1 1.

8 Ao<r. Cont IHt. PMl). lib. ti. §. 67. torn. 9. col. S8S. De anie. bapt. c. 3. ib.
eol.589.

4 De bapt conir. Donat lib. ▼. c. 81. torn. tx. col. 166.

6 Ilia conioetodo quam etiam tunc [i. e. ttmpore Cypriani] bomtnea aursuin
▼eraaa reapicientea oon ▼idebant a poaturioribaa iDatitatain, recte ab Apoatolia tra-
dita oi^tar. De b^pt. contr. Oon. lib. It. c. S. torn. iz. col. 186.

« Diaa. from Poperj, Pt. 2. § 8. Worka, toI. x. p. 488.

NO DIVINK INPORMAVT. 26?

•

thing like what a witty geDtleman said of an old man and an old
woman in Ireland, that if they should agree to say thai they were
Adam and Eve, no man living, could disprove them . . . This
rule is but a precarious pitiful presumption, since every antient
custom that any succeeding age hath a mind to continue, may
for the credit of it and the ignorance of the original, like new
upstart gentlemen, be entitled to an honourable house. ' Every
ope believes the commandments of his ancestors to be traditions
apostolical,' said St. Jerome; and that these came in by private
authority, and yet obtained, a public nanne, we have competent
warranty from TertuUian. (De cor. roil. c. 4,)"^

In another part of the same work,* Augustine has put these
two requisites together, as forming jointly a sufficient proof of
Apostolical tradition ; in which ta^e the whole argument drops
at once from the want of universality in the practice.

Nor does Augustine, while in his controversial zeal against the
Donatists he opposes the sentiments of Qyprian, and espouses the
cause of his opponent Stephen, seem to remember that his own
view was npt the same as that of Stephen, and therefore that he
must either give up Stephen too, or the apostolicity of his own
practice ; and in all ways the apostolicity of his own practice was
not only destitute of proof but against evidence.

It is manifest, also, that Augustine himself felt the necessity of
supporting his cause by some better proofs, and by showing that
Scripture was on his side. ^' Lest," saith he, ** I ^hould s^em to
treat the matter with human arguments since the obscurity
of this question drove great men, in former times of the church,
before the schism of Donatus,and men endued with much Chris-
tian charity, episcopal Fathers, to differ from one another, &c.
.... I produce/rom the Gospel certain proofs^ by which, the
Lord helping me, I prove how rightly and truly , according to the
Divine will, it has been ordained," &g.»

And so it appeared to Bishop Taylor, who, after the observa-
tions quoted above, adds, " But it seems himself was not sure that
so little a foundation could carry so big a weight ; be therefore
plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this question : * Whether is
more pernicious, not to be baptized, or to be rebaptized, is hard

I Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. 2. § 3. Works, x. p. 445.

s Quod universa tenet Scclesia nee conciliis institutum sed semper retenlum
est, non nisi aactbriute apostolica tmditnm recUs^me creditur. De bapt. contr.
Don. lib. i«. c 24. torn. ix. col. 140.

^ Jam enim ne Tidear hamanis arf^meatis id agere, qooDiitm qosstionis bujas
obscaritas prioribns Ecclesie temporibns ante scbisma Donati magoos viros et
magna cariute pneditos patres episcopos ita inter se coippolit salva pace discep-
tare, dec* .... ex Ev^gelio profero-certa docamenta qoibos Domino adjuvante
demonsUo qaam recte plaeoerit et vere secuddfiB Deom> dbc De bapt contr.
Donat. lib. 1. c. 7. tom. ix. col. 84.

"I

t

I

268 PATBlSnCAIr TSADITIOK

to judge ; nevertheless, ha vine recourse to' the standard of^ our
Lord, where the nrKmumentsof this are not estimated by human
sense but by Divine authority* I find concerning each of them the
sentence of our Lord* (Cont. Don. lib. iv. c. 14, &c., 17 and 24),
to wit in the Scriptures."*

And this reference to Scripture proof is repeated in many other
parts of the same treatise.

Are we to be told, then, that Cyprian erred betause he rested
upon the authority of Scripture t

There is one more remark, also, which the consideration of this
case suggests, viz. how little we can trust the reports given by many
of the Fathers with respect to such matters. For in the cas^ be-
fore us, we are told by Eusebius that Cyprian was the first to
introduce the practice he followed.' Nor are the statements
of Augustine free from similar error.* But the Monk of Lerins
has, as usual, settled everything without hesitation to his own
Kking, and thus faithfully chronicles this matter. ** This,^8aith
he, " hath ever been usual in the church, that the more religious
a man hath been, the more readily hath he always resisted novel
inventions ; exabnples whereof everywhere are plentiful, but for
brevity's sake 1 will ouly make choice of some one, which shall be
taken from the Apostolic See, by which all men may see most plain-
ly with what force always, what zeal, what endeavour, the blessed
succession of the blessed Apostles have defended the integrity of
that religion which they once received. Therefore, in times past,
Agrippinus, of venerable memory. Bishop of Carthage, the firs f
of all mortal men, maintained this assertion against the divine
Scripture, against the rule of the Universal Church, against

THE MIND OF ALL THE PRIESTS OF HIS TI^E, AGAINST THE CUSTOM

AND TRADITION OF HIS FOREFATHERS, that rebaptizatiou Was to be
practised. Which presumption pf his procured so great hurt to
the Church, that not only it gave all heretics a pattern of sacri-
lege, but also ministered occasion of error to some Catholics.
When, therefore, everywhere all men exclaimed against the
novelty of the docfrine, and all priests in all places, each one
according to his zeal did oppose, then Pope* Stephen, of blessed
memory. Bishop of the Apostolic See, resisted, in common indeed
with therest of his fellow bishops, but yet more than the rest, think-
ing it, as 1 suppose, reason so much to excel all other in devotion
towards (h% faith, as he was superior to them in authority of
place. To conclude, in his Epistle, which then was sent to Afri^
ca, he decreed the same in these words ; That nothing was to be

I Woriti, ▼ol. X. p. 484.

' riMrrof T»Tt (or, tm toti) KvTfut99t *n( »4t« KAfX*^o*ti^t^^f*f irot(uuif, wt mMMf
n ha. X9vrp9v 9p»vnp^ «r»c whoan tar^tuAnprnfAmw^ vrf^vttw^M hn iryvr^' EutiB. Hift.
Eccl. lib. tH. c. 8.

9 Vide Aagatt. De bapt. contr. Dontt. lib. !▼. e. 6. torn. is. col. US.

VO IMVIHB IKFOSMAMT. M9

iDDOvated, but that whicb came by tradition ought to be ob*
served. For that holy and prqdent man knew well, that the
nature of piety could admit nothing else, but only to deliver to
our children all things with the same ddelity with which we re-
ceived them of our ^refathers, and that we ought to follow reli-
gion whither it doth lead us, and not to lead religion whither
it pleases us rand that it is proper to Christian modesty and
gravity not to leave unto posterity our own inventions, but
to keep that which our predecessor^ left us. What, therefore,
was the end of that whole business? What but that which is
common and usual, to wit, antiquity was retained, novelty eX'
ploded. But perhaps that very invention of novelty lacked
patrons and defenders ? To which I say, on the contrary, that
it had such pregnant wits, such flow of eloquence, such number
of defenders, such shpw of truth, such testimonies of divine Scrip-
ture, but understood evidently after a n^w and naughty fashion,
that all that conspiracy and schism should have seemed unto me
invincible, had not the sole cause of such turmoil, the very pro-
FBSsiofr iTSBLF OP NOVELTY, SO taken in hand, so defended, so re-
commended, lef^ it without support. To conclude, what force
had the council or decree of Africa 1 By God's providence none,
but all was abolished, disannulled, abrogated, as dreams, as fables,
as superfluous. And, O strange change of the world! the au-
thors of that opinion are judged to be catholics, bat the followers
of the same heretics ; the masters discharged, the scholars con-
demned ; the writers of those books shall be children of the
kingdom, but hell shall receive their maintainers. For
who is so mad as to doubt but that that light of all saints, bishops
and martyrs, the most blessed Cyprian, with the rest of his com-
panions, shall reign )vith Christ for ever? And contrariwise,
who is so wicked to deny that the Donatists, and such other
pests, which vaunt that they do practise rebaptiz^t^on by the au*
thority of that Council, shall burn for ever with the devil ?"^

I leave this passage to the reader's reflections, only remarking,
that we have here very sufficient evidence how far this writer is
to be trusted in his accounts, and also an exemplification of what
his " all men everywhere'' practically means.

The excuse of ignorance may be his; for, as Basil tells us, the
Western church often neither knew the true state of afikirs in
the Eastern, nor went the way to learn it ;* but this is but a poor
apok)gy for one who professes to know what " everybody always
everywhere" thought about the matter, and to ground his deter-

1 Vine. Ler. Commonit. § 6. I give it in the translstion lately published at
Oxford.

* OvTi to-ATt Tiny TAfi' ifxn <rw ti?jS§uLf, oynt mv Uof // it tu fAtivBa»mt »afTx^tX9V*t4U,
Basil. Ep. 239. ad Euieb. torn. iii. p. 368. ed. Ben.

Z»

STO FATKiniC&L TKADmOK

miDaUoDS tbereoo; and, indeed, cnnnot, after all, fully accouot
for (he atatetnents he baa here made ; which I suppose do candid
mind can read but with disgust.

(4) Even in pmnts in which one might have expected " tradi-
tion" to have preserved the truth for B<»ne time at least, we find
it fail.

Thus as to the duration of our Lord's public miBistry, we are

fold by Clemebt of Alexandria that he preached only one year,^

and by Origen (bat he preached a year and a few months.*

Irenxus, on the other hand, shows how contrary this notion is to

the testimony of the Gospels themseh'es, but with equal error

HSMtrta that our Lord was forty or fifty years old at the time of his

death, for which he refers to Scripluret' and tradition, asserting

that all the elders who had been Acquainted with St. John in

Asia, testified that he had delivered this to them ; some of whom

ties, and heard the same Bccount'from them.*

. therefore, what Mr. Newman can mean

it this statement of Irenjeus is one of the

-operly go by the name of traditions," and

71 to be considered Jiposiolical"'

proceed to a general review of the rites and

ch,'we should find many instances of claims

thers to the sanction of Apostolical tradition

lis which no one in the present day would

d by the Apostles; as. Tor instance, the trine

immersion in baptism, which Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, and

Ambrose, nil call an apostolical tradition.'

So that even in matters of fact, and eccle^iaslical rites and
ordinances, we find the Fathers tliat remain to us very insuffi*
cient witnesses to assure us of what is or is not nn Apostolical tra-
dition. •^ fortiori, (hen, is their testimony insufficient in doc-
trinal points, where the liability to misapprehension and mistake
is so mOch greater.

There is one remark, however, which 1 would here make to

I "Enmntt font. Strom, lib. 1. p. 407. ed. Patter. And ■«• aihcr.nmilar iMti-
manies in tbe uols of Potter on ibi* place.

1 Eiuwrn to. mi finac ■u>«iif tiiln^n. Pblloctl, c. 1, lo hi* (^ammeiilirj oa
Luke i*. he makei lh« timit ew year. See Pot|er not. in Clem. Al. p. UT.
- 1 Ad*, hter. lib. ii. e. i'i. ed. MaM. c. 39. eil. Giib.

* name J fTfUrevrifoi ifUTU^rir, ci ua-it nr Airior laann ts Ttv KiWH fi*Srnnf/-
MiJiium, Ttrntitmitaai tinit t« iBumi. UtfifitBt yxt «wwc yi^fi tm Tftniua/
)lfmH. Qniiiam iiileni Munm nan aalnm JoiDoein *ed et alioa Apoatoiua vide-
TuDt at bsc eadem ab ipiii nadiiTunt, et tealaolur de hDJotmodi rcluiane. lb.
Tlis Gieeli ii preMi**d b; Euaeb. H. E. lib. iil c. 33.

i P. SOT.

' Anotlker inMaoe* ma; be mcd in Epiphan. Hxr. S8. f 6. ton). I. p. 114, ob
which aee the tanarka of.Whiib; in hu Uomm. aa I Ooc. xt. 39.

prevent being mimndentood, viz. that I am not here queationii^
the competency or fidelity of the Falhcri aa witnewes to tboce
facta and practices of which they were theoiBelves cognizant ; or
the value of their testimony in these matters. Thus, for instance,
their testimony to Episcopacy, infant baptism and the observance
of the Lord's day, as usages in force in their time, is invaluable
as giving us an important conjirmation of the correctnen of our
interpretation of thoee passages of Scripture which show us the
apOBtolicity of those usages.

But that we have any patristical testimony which of itaelf is
snfficient to ussure us what was the oral teaching of the Apostles,
either in a matter of doctrine or practice, we alti^etber deny.*

When taunted therefore, as our opponents sometimes seem in-
clined to taunt us, with despising " Apostolical traditions," we say
with their own chosen uniness. Bishop Patrick, " This is a
downright calumny ; for we have ever ow
tradition^ if we knew where to find tht
the Bible, are to be received anii followed,
as of necessary obligation. But we do li

Know iro SUCH TRADITIOHS." (AuSW. tO Tol

Moreover as the sanction of Apostolici
groundleasly pleaded by some of the Fathe
points, BO also is their testimtiny not fully
when claiming, as they not unfrequeotly d
Church.

' We have already seen in a former page how Origen's predilec-
tions influenced him in this respect, and that according to Jerome
he made his own fancies mysteries ot the Church.*

And the reader of the Fathers will find this to be constantly
the case. Their own views are often unhesitatingly stamped by
them with the authol-ity of "the Church," when to impartial
observers it is evident that fluch a claim is wholly unfounded.

Thus Jerome, in mpre than one place,* maintains it to be the

I Tbe d<grM at dsfetancf dua to Ihe liU* and caitomi of lbs primtii** charch
ti a qiinlion wbicb it vould ba oat of place to iliwniH hare, bat I would obnr>e
tbal LbfliGinirlu mule aboie ma« Dot be Lakea ■■denying tbat tbe; hiTa a cUim
apoD oar reipecl anil regard. Of bim who clainja njore tbin tbi* in (heir behalf
I wualJ nek, bow il ii Iburall partlei haTs lor age* giien up iiiaiiT that were rt-
tMiDed of netttiarii obaanatjon in ibe primitiia churcb, la, far inaCaace, atanding
at public prtyen on Suadara, and from Eaalar to WhiteoBlide, onlered by iha
Council of Nice, of Uia non-obeemnce of wblch Terlullian aaji, lu/at duci-
mtu. (De Cor. c. 3.) But on ihi* auhjact n>e ehall bate to apeak mora at large
bereafter. (3ee chapL 8.) i

iSee p. 187 atwie.

t72 punuvrio^i JKAOirioir

doctrine of the church that the souk of iofants are created bj
(jod« and traD8fu9ed into them before jtbeir birth ; and he is ex^
ceedingijr indignant at Ruffinas for vieoturiog to express a doubt
on the fnatter, and to say that though he had read much on the
subject on all sides, he^till felt ignorant as to the origin of the
soul. ^^ Do jrou wonder," saith he, '^ that the reproaches of the
brethren are raised against you^ when jou declare, that you are
ignorant of that which the Churches of Christ profess to know ?"^
And what makes this more remarkable is, that he admits eke-*
where that Tertuliian, Apollinaris, and the greatest part qfthe
fVestern eeclesijostics maintained that the soul was ex trctduce.*

The same assertion, however, was made by Theodoret and by
Geniradius. ^

Thus Theodoret says, — *' The Church .... believii^ the
Divine Scripture, affirms that tbe soul is created together with
the body, not having its origin from man, but brought into exis-
tence after the formation of the body by the will of the Creator.' -^

And Gennadius reckbns it among the doctrines of the church,
that the souls of men are not derived from their parents, but

juxta hnita animalia, ut quomodo corpai ex oorpore aic anima geoeretar ex anima?
Ab ralionabilea creatane ittidtrio corporam paolatim ad terrain delapse, noviMi-
ne etiam humania illigatftcocporiboa ainti A41 oerte* gu9d ecclenaaticum etty
secandiim eloqaia Salvatons, Pater meua aaque modp operatur, et ego operur ;
[Jo. 5. 17J et ilfud laaiaT [Zech. xij. I.] Qui format spiritual hominis in ipso ;
et in Psal'mia^, Qui fingit per singiiloa corda eomm [Pa. zxxii. 16,] quotidie Vent
fabricutur animat. Ad Pammach. ad^. error. Job. Hierosol. § 22. totii. ii. c.
427. ed, Vall. Yen. Ep..d8. torn. iV'/P* 2. coK 318. ed. Ben.— ^Quariaa me quid
ipse de animabua sentiuro ; ut cum profeasus fuerp stratim invadas. ' £t si dixero
illud eccletiatticum, QuoticKe Deus operatur animas, et in corpora eas mittit nas;
centium, illico magistri tendiculas proferas, et, Ubi est justitia Dei ut de Adulterio
incattuquB naseentibas animas largiator t Adv. Ruffin. lib. iii. § 28. torn. ii. c. >
557, edf Vall. Veo. torn. !▼. p. 8. col. 464. ed. Bea«

1 Mirari^ ai contra te fratrum acandala concltentur, quum id nescire te jures
quod Chrisli Eccle^iae se nosse faCeanturl Adv^ Kuffin. fib. ii. § 10. torn. ii. c.
500. ed. Vall. Yen. torn. iv. p. 2. col. 399. ed. Ben.

s i$uper animeitata raemini ▼eatrs qoMttiiilcQlB,.immo mazioic eccleaiasticc
questioniff, Utrum lapaa de celo ait, ut Pythagoras pbilosophus, omnesquo Plato-
nici et Origenea putant, an a propria Dei substantia, ut Stoici Manicheus et His-
puna Priscilliani hsresis suspicantur ; an in thesauro habea'ntur Dei ditm oonditip,
ut quidam ecclesiastici stuita persuasinne confidunt; an quotidie a Deo fiant et
mittantur in corpora secundum illud quod in E^angeHo scriptum est, * Pater meuo
usque modo operatur et ego operor ;' an certe ax traduce, ut Tertullianus. Apol-
linaris^ et maxima pars Occidentalium autumant; ut quomodo corpus ex corpore
sic anima nascatur ex anima, et simili cum brutis animantibus conditione subsis- ;
tat. 8uper quo quid mihi videretur, in opusculis contra Ruffinum scripsisse me
novi, ^. Hieron; Ep. ad Marcell. et Anapsych. Ep. 126. ed. Vall. Yen. Inter
August Ep. 165( Op. Aug. torn. 2. col. 582.

3 <li i% 'Enjojtvta. . . . tn bfua. fnS^fMtn y^ttpii xryvt hmr ^^X"^ ffvi4'»fAi6Vffy%iffBtu *rm

\tiru *r$¥ IleiitTev (Mta vw vpv o^m^ktoc 9xniff^*fAfinii iuerhM^a. Theodoret. Herel.
Fab. lib. ▼. c. 9. com.4T. pp. 413, 14. ed. Schulie.

NO Dirm iirvoxHAifT. S78

that the body only is thus propagated, and that after the foraia-
tioD of the body the soul is created by Grod and ipfused into it be-
fore the birth.^

But that this claim to the sanction of the church for this doc-
trine was wholly unfounded we have abundant proof. For Ori-
gen expressly tell us, as we have already seen,* that with respect
to the origin of the soul there w^ no clear testimoBy preserved
in the church. This also clearly follows from the words of
Jerome himself in the last of the passages we have quoted from
him above.

Augustine openly t)rofe8ses that be could not make up his mind
in the matter,' and is evidently disinclined to the reception of the
opinion advocated by Jerome, since in his letter to him, advert-
ing to the passages we have qu6ted from biin above, he asks jbim
how his opinion can be reconciled with the doctrine of original
sin ;^ and in his last work (The Retractation^) , he repeats the
expression of his doubt in the matter, remarking that '* with re-
spect to the origin of the isoul, how it becomes united to the body,
whether it springs from that one which was first created, when
man was made a living 86ul, or whether the souls of all are cre-
ated alike, neither did I then [L e. when he wrote his book
*^ Contra Academicos"] know, nor do I yet know.^'^ And again,
alluding to his letter of inquiryon the subject to Jerome, he tells
us that Jerome replied that he had not leisure to answer it, which
bad induced him not to publish his letter to Jerome until after
Jerome's death, but that he then published the letter <' for this
purpose, that the reader might be aidmonished either not to in-
quire at all how the soul was given to those who were born, or
at any rate to admit on a most obscure point such a solution of
the question as should not be opposed to things which are most
<:lear, which^ the catholic faith maintains concerning original*

1 Animal hominam non mm ab initio inter eetoraa iQtellactiialM natarM n«c
aunnl crMlas, tioot OriginM fingit { negue cum corporibm p§r coitum ttmiwitUM
aicot Lociferiani et Cyrilloa et aliqui LaUDorum prstamtofM affirmant, qaaM
natnra conMqaenliam Mrvantea. tied dicimofl crMtionem animn iolum<Orea-
torem omniam noaM, et corpus tantum per cof^ugii cepulam teminarif Dei vero
jadicio eoagulari in ▼nlva et compingi atqne formari, ac formate Jam eorpore
animam crtari et infundi, nt vivat in utero homo ex anima conetana et corpore,
et egrediator viTue ex ntero plenna homana eabftantia. Gennad. De ecclM; dog-
mat c 14. Inter Op« Angast. tQm. 8. app. col. 77. ^

< Sm p. 184 above.

t AugQft Ep. 166. Ad. Hieron. torn. ii. coK 683 et Mq., 9nd Ep. 190. Ad Op^
tat. ib. col. 700 et Mq»

4 Ep. 166. Ad Hieron. § 10. torn. il. coL 587.

^ Quod attinet ad ejus |^i. e. animi] originem, qua fit ut fit in corpore, utrum
de illo uno itt, qui primum creatua est, quando factos Mt homo in ,animam Yivam,
An similiter ita fiant singnlv»aingali, nee. tunc sdabam aec adhne scio. Retract.
lib. i. c. 1. torn* i. col. 4, 5.

274 PATBUnOAI. TBADinoir

sin in the indubitaMe damaatJon ot iiWants unlets 'th^ are re*
generated in Christ.*'^

And lastly, this division of opinion among the Fathers on this
poiDt is particiilarly noted by Chregory the Great, and the ques-
tion admitted to be one whioh cou(d not be determined.'

Before I pass on, I would point the reader's attention to a re-
mark of Augustine in |,he passage just quoted, as another iUus*
tration of what we are now endeavouring to prove, vis. that in
which he says that it was ^* the cathoUc/cdth*^ that unNptised
infants were indubitably lost. Nothing can more fully show how
unhesitatingly the sanction of '^ ike church^^^ and '< the catholic
faith^^ was claimed by the Fathers for doctrines which had no
pretence lo such a distinction. It is here claimed by Augustine
in a case where he is strongly accused by many of being himself*^
the father of the doctrine.^ •

So again it is reckoned by Gennadiiis among, the doctrines of
the church, that '^ nothing is to be believed to be by nature in-
corporeal and invisible, but God alone, that is. Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. . « . • Every creature is corporeal, the angels and
all the heavenly powers are c;orporeal, although not of a fleshly
subsistence."^ And the same is asserted by John, Bbhop of Thes-
salooica, who says, '* Tk^ catholic church acknowledges them
[i. e. th6 aneelsj to be beings of an intellectual nature, not in-
deed altogether incorporeal and invisible, but having bodies of a
subtile texture, and airy or fiery, according to that which is
written, * who maketh his apgels spirits, his ministers a flapne of
fire'"*

I ^d kuo edidi, «t qui legk admo^MCtur aiit hob quasreM ommDo quomodo d«-
lor tDioM nasceoUbas, aut- certe de re obacDriasima eam lolutipnem qusalionis
hujos admittere <^aa contraria non sit apertissimis rebus, qaas de originali peccato
fides eatbolica novit in parvalis nisi regenerentnr in Christo sine dabitatione dam-
nandis. Retract, lib. ii. c. 46. torn, i, col. 57.

B De origine aiiiiBi|& Inter sanelofr Patres rtqoiaitio nan parm Tersata eat; ted
Qtrsfli ipea ab Adaoi deoenderit, an oerte aingiifis ietur, mcertoBi renMneit ; «ani-
qoe in hac vita ioeolobilen fassi aunt tfue queationein. Gravia enim eat ^tisstio,
nee valet ab honiine oomprehendi ; quia ei de Adam aubatantta anima cum came
naacitur, eur non etiam com dame moritur Y 8i iere cum carne non nascfHur, cur
in ea carne qua de Adam prolata est obligata peecatis tenetUr 1 Bed cum hoc ait
incertum, illud ineerlum non est, quia nisi aacri baptiamatia gratia fmttk renatue
homo, omnis atiima onginalia peceati vineulis eat^batricta. Gaa». Ma«>. £pift.
lib. ix. indict. 2. Ep. 52. tom. ii. eol. 970. ed. Par. 1705.

t See Bishop Taylor's Lib. ofPbph. % 8, dec.

4 Ifihil incorporeum et mvisibile natnra oredendnm, nisi solum Deuni, id eel,
Patrem et Filium «t Spiritum Sanctum. ..... Creatura omnia corporea est ;

angeli et omnes celestes v^tutes eorporee, licet non came subsistani. Gb^vad.
Pe eccles. dogmat cc. 11, 12. Inter. Op. Aug. tom. viii. app. col. 77.

5 Noijpovc fJt»M*rov( i ka^oxuui Ekhkhoia yumcMi, pv fAXt twe^nrovt Vdatn tuu ataptt/-

fAmvft 0 9nm9 tovc «»«^otfc «utov Tm;/u«T«y tuU tout xmwfytmt «wov ^rttp 99df^

no DI^KS IlfFORMANT. 275

Bat this certainly waft not the doctrioe of the churchy for the
contrary is distinctly maintained by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gre*
gory Nysten, and tnany others.^

Thus Chrysostom speaks of the angels as beinc; incorporeaL^
A^d Theodoret says,-^" We know that the angds are of an in-
corporeal nature, but they asstinae appearances for the benefit
of the bebolders."* And again, — ^ Their natures are not seen, for
they are incorporeal V and after adding that they assume vari-
ous appearances for the sake of tliose to whom they, appear, he
observes, '^ but they are not of various forms, but as intellectual
natures are incorporeal, but as need may require their Lord
clothes them with certain ferpisf to appear in."^ And Gregory
Nysften speaks of the angels as having *^an incorporeal nature,"'
and being ** incorporeal and immaterial.* '' '

Thus, also, tiennadius reckons it as a doctrine of the church,
that the angels and all the heavenly powers were made when
the darkl^esB yet covered the waters' But, iis we have already
seen; Origen tells us that when and how the angels were ci'eat-
ed^ is a point not clearly manifested in the teaching of the
churchi^ And so say othert».»

Many other of the doctrines attributed by Gennadius to the
churchy are equally destitute of such authority.

Innumerabie exiftmples of such unfounded claims might be ad-
duced from the Fathers. But these are amply sufficient for our
purpose; viz., to show how little we can depend uponsuch claims
in themselves.

Nor must we fail to recoUect> tha:t such claims were equally
made by the heretics and by Eusebius (as we shati show present-
ly,*^) in favour of unorthodox doctrine, even on the highest point?
of faith. Whatever was maintained was sure to be described by
its supporters as the doctrine of the holy Catholic Church.

JouAJfiM' TavMALOwic. cit ip Concil. Ntc 30. AeC. 6. CMicil. (om. ▼ii. col.
353. ed. Pari& 1671.

1 See the notet of Elmenhortt on GennadtQs, cc 11, 13.

2 QhrysoitdtD. In Gen. horn. 33, ^ 3. toni. iv. p. 195^ ed. B«r.

s Antfjuvrw /* if*»H i^u» ten ^yyiKtiv mif pua-a. v^nfAAtU^wct i^ t«u- ^iut'vpH ta
XfuwtfMit fTMT fMMT4w. Tbkodobxt. In D«D. xii, 7. torn, iu p* 1398. ed. Schal^.

In Zecb. c i. vm. 8 — 11. lom. ii. pp. 1697, 6. See also hia Qoaat. in G«n. q. 47.
tOHK i. p. 68. ^

s Tm Tw AtrmfAATw tpjixorm pu^tt. Qjice. Nxaa. Be viu Moaia. torn. i. p.'l95.
ed. 1616. -

• A^M^MiTec <rf aau «iSxoc m. Id. Dcr paoper. amand, lb. p. 884,

7 Cum adhac tanebfaa ipaam aqnam oecnttafant, at' aqoam tarpi abaaoodaret,
facti aunt angeli ai omoea caleatea yirtutea. Qiwad. Da acolai. dogn.'c 10.
IsU op. Angoatini, torn. 8, App. col. 77.

s See p. 184 above.

* See Um Bo4a« of Elmeahont on Gansad. c. 10. lo Saa ^ 7. balaw.

3T6 FATKimCAL TBADinoir

We have thus coosidered the writings of the Fathers in all
the three points of view under which their authors appear; viz.,
as private teachers, as witnesses of what thej professed to derive
by sttCcessioQal deKverj from the Apostles, and as witnesses of
what they ciaimed to be considered the belief of ** the charch ;''
and we have found that, in all these characters, thej oppose auid
contradict one another on various important points; and there^
fore that ao such consent existed in the nominal primitive church
as our opponents suppose.

Lastly, it must be added, that neither did the determinations
of the Fathers, when assembled together in Cbundls, even the
largest and most general which the chi^rch has ever seen, agree
together.

For the proof of this, we have not far to seek. In less than
twenty-five years after the meeting of the first G>uocil which
had any pretension to be called a General Council-Hiamely, the
first Nicene,--*the orthodox creed there, established, was contra-
dicted (as we have already observed) by a far more mimerous
assembly of bishops, which met for the Western Church at Atimi-
aum, and for the Eastern at Seleucia ; and of which Bishop Stil-
lingfleet says, ^* The Council of Ariminum, together with that of
Seleucia, which sat at the same time, makt up the most C^ene-
red Council we read of in Church History* For fiellarmine
owns that there were six hundred bishops in the Western part of
it. So that there were many more bishops assembled, than were
in the Council of Nice; there was no exception against Ihe sum-
mons, or the bishops present.''^

And this discrepancy between the two is (as we have already
observed) noticed and admitted by Augustine, as rendering it use-
less to rdfer to either as an authority in the point in dispute.

To speak of the motives which actiliated, or the influence
brought to bear upon, one or the other of these assembliles as
accounting for their determination, is auite beside the mark ; or
rather is an additional proof how little such assemblies can be
relied upon.

Again, another proof of this is afforded us, in the contradictory
determinations of the Second Council of Epbesus in 449 and the
Council of Chakedon (called the fourth General CJouocil) ih 451.
It is a well-known fact, that the great question &pon which
both these Councils were assembled, that relating to the Euty-
chian error respecting the person of Christ, was determined by
them in a precisely opposite manner ; and the leading advocate
of each opinion punnhed and sent into exile by these Coun^ib

> VtndiettloB of the Ahvwer M mm% Uit Pspcrt. pp. 68, 4.

NO DIVI9B ISFORMANT. 277

respectively ; Flavianus by that of Ephesus, Dioscorus by that
of Chalcedon.

Nor can the force of this example be taken ofl' by the plea
which has been urged by some of the Romaoistst that the latter
was a Greneral Council, but the former net sa For this is not the
case* as has been already shown by Bishops Jewell' and Stilling-
fleet* (our opponents' own witnesses).

It was summoned as the other oecumenical Councils were, and
in all respects as to the presence of patriarchs, and the number
of bishops, and such matters, had as good a right to be considered
a General Council, as almost any of those that are so called.

This Council is cited by Bishop Jewell as a proof that General
Councils may err; and he remarks to his Romish adversary,
** Where ye say, ye could never yet find the error of one Gene-
ral Council, I trow this escaped you for default of memory. Al-
bertus Pigghius, the greatest learned man of your side, hath
found out such errors to our hands, namely, in his book that
he calleth Sceksiastica Hierarchia, Speaking of the Second
Council holden at Ephesus, which ye cannot deny but it was
general^ and yet took part with the heretic Abbot Eutyches
against the godly man Flavianus, he writeth thus, Concilia ttni*
versaUa etiam congregata legitime ut bene ita perperam in^
juste impieque judicare ac d^nire possunt ; that is. General
Councils, yea even such as be lawfully summoned^ as they may
conclude things well, so may they likewise judge and determine
things rashly, unjustly, and wickedly."

And when his adversary accused Pigghius of error in this, and
denied that it was a General Council, be replies, — «' Theodosiufl
the emperor that summoned the bishops together, as may appear
by his words, took it to be general. For thus he writeth to the
CJouncil ; Cogitantes non esse tutum absque vestra sancta Sy^
node et ubique sanctarum Ecclesiarum prassulibusy hujuS"
modi qusBstionem de Jide renovari necessarium duximus
vestram sanctitatem convenire. These words, Sanctarum Ec^
clesiarum quss ubique sunt, import a generahty of all churches
through the world. Further, there was the Emperor's authority,
the Bishop of Rome's Legate, which, as some men think, maketh
up all together ; and other bishops of all nations. And how could
such a Council not be general ?" And having shown that both
Eutyches and Dioscorus spoke of this as a General [universalis
Council, he adds, — ^*'But if perhaps ye doubt of these words, be-
cause the one was Eutyches, the other was Dioscorus, by whom
they were sp^en, (bowbeit notwithstanding they were beretici,

1 8ee hit LMtert to Dr. Cole in hit Work*, pp. 94, 5.
> Vindicatioo of Antwer to Paper*, p. 64.

VOL. I. A A

^

278 PATRItnCAL IVADinOK

yet could they not lightly make aD open lie in a matter that was
so evident,) then read ye the old father Liberatus, that was ^^r-
chidiaconus Carthaginensis^ and lived under Vigilius, Bishop of
Rome» at the least a thousand years ago, and writeth the very
story of this Council : his words be these. Fit Bphesi generate
concilium ad quod convenerunt Fiavianus ei Eutychea tan^
quam judicandi. There is appointed, saith he, at Ephesus a
General Council, in the which Fiavianus and £utycbes made
their appearance as men standing to be judged."^

This extract from Bishop Jewell, may, I bope^ serve not only
to show that what are called General Councils are no final and
binding authority in themselves, but that such also was the
opinion of our Reformers ; and thus abate the pretensions of
some among us, who seem desirous of identifying their reception
of what are called the first four General Councils, with an ac-
knowledgment of an intrinsic binding authority in them over the
consciences of men.

What, then, is the ground upon which this Council is denied
the title of General ? Because of its violence, forsooth. A suf-
ficiently disgraceful charge, certainly, against an assembly of
Christian bishops met together for the pronH>tion of the faith of
Christ. But is it possible that any one who acknowledges the
Jiret Euphesine Council to be a General Council, can deny that
appellation to the second, because of its violence 7 Never, per-
haps, was there exhibited in the church a worse specimen of
indecent haste, party spirit, tumult and violence, than in the first
council at £phesus, called the third General Council, where the
party attached to Cyril had not even the decency to wait till the
arrival of the Eastern i>ishop8. No one can read the account of
its proceedings without feeling that the truth owes nothing to it,
but the disgrace of having been so supported. And yet this
assembly, because its determination happened to be in favour of
orthodoxy, is to be dignified as holy, and venerable, and sacred,
and otcumenicaly (to which last title, by the way, it could have
had no pretensions, whatever its conduct had been,) while an-
other called in the same way, and precisely of the same kind, is
to be dismissed at once, on account of a similar spirit having been
displayed in it, as a paltry Synod that met in a comer of which
no account is to be made, dome men seem to think that they
can change the nature of things, by imposing certain names on
them ; and the truth is, that with the majority of men who will
not give themselves the trouble to think and examine, especially
in religion, names are often taken in the place o( realities; and

1 Utter to Dr. Cole in Works, pp. 84. 6.

MO DIVniB UfFOKKANT. 379

to this the Romanists and our oppooents owe Dine-teoths of the
success they have met with.

To the above iostauces of the variety of seatiment that pre-
vailed in the antient Church even on the most important points,
it would be easy to add, but the task is a melancholv and un-
grateful one. I have produced amply sufficient proof that the
notion of our opponents, that there is to be found in the writings
of the early Fatners a consentient delivery of the faith, deriveid
from the oral teaching of the Apostles, fuller than what is clearly
and plainly delivered in the Scriptures, is a dream which a very
little acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers will at once
put an end to. My object, therefore, is answered. ^' For" (to
use the words of one of our opponents' best and most learned
witnesses. Bishop Jeremy Taylor) '* if I should inquire into the
particular probations of this article [i. e. " the inconsistencies of
the Fathers"] I must do to them as I should be forced to do now,
if any man should say that the writings of the schoolmen were
excellent argument and authority to determine men's persuasions.
I must consider their writings, and observe their defailances,
their contradictions, the weakness of their arguments, the misal-
legations of Scripture^ their inconsequent deductions; their false
opinions, and all the weaknesses of humaoity, aod the failings of
their persons, which no good man is williog to do, unless he be
compelled to it by a pretence that they are infallible^ or that
they are followed by men even into errors or impiety. And,
therefore, since there is enough in the former instances to cure
any such mispersuasion and prejudice, I will instance in the in*
numerable particularities that might persuade us to keep our
liberty entire, or to use it discreetly. For it is not to be denied,
but that great advantages are to be made by their writings, and
probabik est quod omnibus^ quod pluribus, quod sapientibus
videtur ; if one wise man says a thing, it is an argument to me
to believe it in its degree of probation ; that is, proportionable to
such an assent as the authority of a wise man can produce, and
when there is nothing against it that is greater ; and so in propor-
tion, higher and higher, as more wise men, such as the old doc-
tors were, do affirm it But that which I complain of is, that we
look upon wise men that lived long ago with so much veneration
and mistake, that we reverence them, not for having been wise
men, but that they lived long since."^

To these direct proofs, that there is no such consent as our op-
ponents suppose in the writings of the early Fathers, we may add
very strong collateral evidence.

1 Lib. of proph. Sect. viii. § S.

9B0 PATBimOAL TSADinON

We have this first id the statements of toaieof the best authors,
both among the Protestants and the Romanists, to this efifect
Thus, ibr instance, Gregory de Valentia says, — ** It must be con-
fessed that it can rarely happen that we can sufficiently know
what was the opinion of all the doctors."^ Bellarmine is forced
constantly to acknowledge their disagreement on important
points.* Huetius and Petavius, two of the most learned of the
moderns in such matters, so far from dreaming of such consent,
accuse many of the Fathers of error on the most important points.
And our own Dr. Cave agrees with them herein, as we have al-
ready seen. Our learned Bishop White, in his Answer to the
Jesuit Fisher, says, — ** Whereas the Jesuit compareth unanimous
tradition of the sense of Scripture with the written letter and
text of the Scripture, unless he equivocate in the name, terming
that tradition which is collected from the Scripture, such uniform
tradition as he boasteth of is very rare, for it must be such as in
all ages, and in all orthodoxal churches, hath been the same.
Now the most undoubted and uniform tradition of all otheTf
is concerning the number and integrity of the books of Holy Scrip-
ture, and yet in this difference hath been between one church
and another. (Euseb. Hist EccL lib. ii. c. 23. and lib. iii. c. 3. and
22.)"' And so still more clearly speaks the able prelate recent-
ly quoted, whom our opponents, drawn by his great name, would
fain persuade us is on their side of the question, I mean Bishop
Jeremy Taylor. " Since nothing," he says, " can require our
supreme assent but that which is truly catholic and apostolic, and
to such a tradition is required, as Irenaeus says, the consent of all
those churches which the Apostles planted, and where they did
preside, this topic will be of so little use in judging heresies, that
(besides what is deposited in Scripture) it cannot be proved in
anything but in the canon of Scripture itself; and, as it is now
received, even in that there is some variety." ..." There is
scarce anything but what is written in Scripture that can, with
any confidence of ai^ument, pretend to derive from the Apostles,
except rituals and manners of ministration ; but no doctrines or
speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so clear a cur-
rent, that we may see a visible channel, and trace it to the primi-
tive fountains." ** Either for the difficulty of their being proved,
the incompetency of the testimony that transmits them, or the
indifierency of the thing transmitted, all traditions, both ritual
and doctrinal, are disabled from determining our consciences

1 Fatendum e«t raro accidere poM«, at qa» ait doctornm ommam Ac de reli*
giooe vententia aatii cognoscatur. Greg. Val. torn. iii. d. Trad. p. 377. As qaotad
bj Bp. White, in his Answer to the Jesuit, p. I SI.

3 See bis work De ControTersiis, pattim,

3 Bp. White's Reply to the Jesuit Fbher, pp. 134, 6.

NO DITINB INFOBXANT. 281

either to a necessary believing or obeying,"^ And speaking of the
** inconsistencies of the Fathers," having shown, in the case of
Augustine, that there could be no innate authority in the writings
even of such a Father, he adds, << The same I say of any com-
pany of them ; I say not so of all of them ; it is to no purpose to
say it, for thbrb is no question this day in contestation in the

EXPLICATION or WHICH ALL THE OLD WRITERS DID CONSENT. In the

assignation of the canon of Scripture they never did consent for
six hundred years together ; and then by that time the bishops
had agreed indifferently well, and but indifferently, upon that,
they fell out in twenty more; and except it be in the Apostles'
creed and articles of such nature, there is nothing which may,
with any colour^ be called a consent, much less tradition univer.
sal."* And as to Mr. Keble's notion, that Bishop Taylor after,
wards changed his mind on this matter, I shall show hereafter,'
from the very last work he wrote, that there is not the slightest
foundation for the idea.

It would be easy to multiply such statements ; and as it respects
the Anglican divines, many similar ones will be found in a subse-
quent chapter.

We have similar evidence, secondly, in the way in which the
Fathers are quoted by all sides and all parties as, more or less,
some or other, favourable to their views.

Thus at the second Nicene Council image- worship was defended
on the authority of the Fathers; and all the errors of the Romish
Church itself have, if you will believe the Romanists, the argu-
ment from antiquity alt(^ether with them. On the other hand,
the Protestants are universally agreed that the weight of patristi-
cal testimony is alt(^ether against those errors. And the Eastern
Churches are equally persuaded that the Fathers are on their
side.

Again, among Protestantsthemselves, all the great parties have,
over and over again, claimed antiquity as on their side. All the
different views entertained by them, on the doctrines of the sa-
craments, justification, <&c. have been supported by the testimony
of Fathers. And zealots on all sides have been found to apply
even the " everybody always everywhere agreed with me" argu-
ment. And still further it is a notorious fact, that most of the
most learned modern Arians have urged more or less patristical
testimony as in their favour.

Now I admit that thb is not a sufficient proof that there is
not a consentient testimony in the writings of all the Fathers on
these points. But the question is, whether there is not some

I Bp. Tatlor'i Liberty of prophetying, Secdoo ▼. § .5.

s lb. SecUoD viii. § 3. 3 8«e cb. 11 below.

A A**

292 patbhtiojll tbaditioh

f round for their being so quoted, whether the admittion made
y almost all those best qualified to judge on such a point, that
their writings abound with hasty and incorrect statements, doies
not at once show that such consent cannot be proved^ and there-
fore cannot be a final standard of appeal, or judge of controver-
sies; and that our opponents' plan for ending controversies by ap-
pealing to the Fathers is perfectly nugatory and chimerical.

And this argument gathers tenfold force^ when we find that
many of the most learned and able patristical scholars have open-
ly confessed that many of the Fathers are against them in some
of the most important points. For here we have something more
than a mere reference to the Fathers for opposite doctrines, we
have an admission to reason upon, made contrary to the preju-
dices of him who made it.

Moreover, as an argumenium ad hominem it is unanswera-
ble. For our opponents charge Scripture with being obscure and
unable to be a rule of faith and judge of controversies because
it is quoted on opposite sides. If, then, this reasoning is correct^
their appeal to the Fathers for the interpretation of Scripture
and the decision of controversies is most absurd, for not only are
they quoted on opposite sides, but it is allowed, by those best able
to judge, that their writings abound with hasty and incorrect
statements, and, by many of the most learned judges, that they
disagree even on the most important points.

The mistakes to which we are liable when relying on such a
foundation as a supposed consent of the Fathers are remarkably
illustrated by some instances selected by our opponents them-
selves as instances of consent, and of course selected in the con-
viction that they were among those that would best stand the
test of examination.

" How else," asks Mr. Keble, [i. e. how but by " catholic tra-
dition,"] " could we know with tolerable certainty that Mel-
chizedek's feast is a type of the blessed eucharist? or that the
book of Canticles is an allegory representing the mystical union
betwixt Christ and his Church ? or that Wisdom in the book of
Proverbs is a name of the Second Person in the Most Holy Tri-
nity ?" " All which interpretations," he adds, " the nK>ment they
are heard, approve themselves to an unprejudiced mind, and
must in all likelihood have come spontaneously into many read-
er's thoughts. But it may be questioned whether we could ever
have arrived at more than a plausible conjecture regarding them,
but for the constant agreement of the early Churchy taking
notice every where in these and the like instances of the manner
in which the Old Testament was divinely accommodated to the
wonders of Christ's religion."*

1 Keble's Sennon, pp. S6, 7.

MO Dirma iMwowaujn. 28S

Here, then, is a specimen (I allude more particnUiriy to the
first and last of the examples mentioned) of what is the practi-
cal meaning of <' catholic tradition,'' and the *^ constant agree-
ment of the early Church/' It is just the consent of some half
a dozen Fathers failing in with the humour of the individual
quoting them. I will not now stay to inquire whether the notion
of Melchizedek's feast being a type of the eucbarist approves
itself the moment it is heard to an unprejudiced mind, though I
must take leave to doubt it. But that it is delivered to us by the
consent even of the Fathers that remain to us, is altogether a
mistake. Mr. Keble's proof is as follows; — "For this see S.
Cyprian, Ep. 63. p. 149. ed. Fell; S. Augustine, De Civ* Dei^
xviii. 20. [? xvi. 22.] S. Jerome, £p. ad Marcellam, t L p. 123.
ed. Frob. Basil. These, with the distinct acknowledgment in the
antient Roman Litui^, may perhaps be considered sufficient to
represent the sense of the Western Churches. Among the Greeks,
S. Chrysostom, (on Gen. xiv.) clearly implies the same construe-*
tion. But the reserve maintained by them on all liturgical sub-
jects may account for their comparative silenqe on this point,
even supposing them to have received the same interpretation."
Such is the proof of '' catholic tradition,*^ and '^ the constant
agreement of the early Church /"

Now it is quite true that Augustine and some other Fathers con-
tidered that the bread and wine were brought forth by Mel-
chizedek in his sacerdotal character, and were a eucharistical
sacrifice to God, but that this was held by the Fathers generally
is a mistake not easy to be accounted for.

One of Mr. Keble's own most learned witnesses. Bishop Mor-
ton, will tell him that other Fathers held it to have been <*an
offering proceeding from the bounty and magnificence of Mel-
chizedek,ybr the refreshing of the soldiers qf Mraham^ and
not from au act belonging to the i\inction of his priesthood by
way of sacrifice unto God."* And though, perhaps, all the Bi-
shop's references may not be correct, yet EpiphaniUs at least is
clear in the matter. '*He brought forth," says Epiphanius,
^^ bread and wine for Abraham and those that were with him, to
entertain the patriarch coming from [the slaughter of] the
kings."' And hence, even some of the Romanists themselves
(mo^t of whom have adopted the other meaning in the hope of
obtaining therefrom some support for their cause) have admitted
that the latter is the true meaning. Thus Pag^inus and Vatab-
lus interpret the passage as meaning, that Melchizedek ** re-

1 Catholic Appeal, p. 166.
yof TM ff^o/uMw n«bTf>MPX''' A(lv. her. LV. torn. i. p. 476.

284 PATBimCAL TBADITIOX

freshed the weary and hungry army with royal liberality/'^
And Andradius says, ** I am of their opinion who affirm that
Melchizedek did refresh Abraham and his soldiers with bread
and wine."*

Again, Mr. Keble's allegation that catholic consent and the
constant agreement of the early Church assure us, '< that Wis-
dom in the book of Proverbs is a name of the Second Person in
the Most Holy Trinity," is equally unfounded. His proof is, " the
disputes on the text, Prov. viii. 22. at the Nicene Council are
sufficient to prove agreement on this point." A very small
foundation surely for such a large superstructure as a claim to
catholic consent.

Now let us hear what Epiphanius says on this matter. Hav-
ing referred to this very text, he says, '* And the Scripture has
not at all any where confirmed this passage, nor has any one of
the Apostles mentioned it, so as to apply it for a name of Christ.
So that consequently it does not at all speak concerning the
Son of God. . . . For the word itself [i. e. wisdom] does not at all
compel me to apply it with reference to the Son of God. For
he [Solomon] has not signified this, nor has any of the Apostles
mentioned it, nor the Gospel either.''' And having proceeded to
observe that some " dared*^* so to apply the passage, he adds,
that it must not be considered as spoken of his divinity but only
of his humanity,' and that after all it was quite optional with us
to suppose it to be spoken of Christ at all or not," and that
though *^some orthodox Fathers" had so interpreted the passage,^
and that it was '* a sense consistent with piety, because some
great Fathers had so understood it," yet that it was optional
with all to receive this interpretation or not as they pleased.^

And the same was evidently the opinion of great St. Basil ; for
(when meeting the objections of Eunomius, derived from this
passage,) having said that it was necessary to apply this passage

1 LftMam et famelicum ezercitum regia liberalitate refecit Aa cited by Mor-
ton, Cath. A pp. p. 396.

2 Ego cam illia aentjo, qui lasaoa Abrabs militea et diatarna piigna fractoa
Melcbizedecbum paneet vino refecisae aiant. Def. Cone. Trid. lib. it. fol. 371.
b. as cited bj Morton, Cath. App. p. 395.

If a VAfittyAyn aanw %K o? ofut Xpicrw* atcf out cu TTAvrcK v%fi tqv T/ov <rec/ Oiev hryu
. . . At/To yufi to pfifitA Qv ^AfTCK Afttyxet^ti fjit wtpt *rw Tiw rou 6«o(; xtyw: cu yttf Wh-
XflMtr, ot^i T/c Tc»» A^orTox«y laMftoHwcv *AX* wrt to EvAyytKsof. EntBAK, adv.
herea. in h. 69. adv. Arian. §§ 20, 21. torn. i. pp. 743, 6.
4 T»X/jM9't TiiTK nrt Tof Tut Tou Qtov Tot^ro 9*r>w. lb. p. 745.

6 lb. p. 746.

< Ou/W i/MLf dutayMMTtm ^dt9*rmc 'n^ *rw yipia^w \ryur re p9 fxa. <rovr«. lb. $ 24. p.
748.

7 TIMC tm fTiuruan ifAm xmj opO)/b^«y «unJW«0ty tovto i.'c nnf tfo-atpKCf WApwfuu. f b.

m jtATAfAyKAjBucrrm. lb.

HO wrmm ihfosmaht. 386

to tbe human nature^ he adds,^— <* It is open also to any one to
say that Solomon spoke these things concerning that wisdom
which the Apostle mentions when he says, ' When in the wisdom
of Grod the world by wisdom knew not God.' "^ And in his homi-
ly on Proverbs he has himself thus interpreted the passage.'

Now I do not deny, but on the contrary roaintain» that very
manyi probably the majority, both of the aniient writers that
remain to us, and also of the moderns, have affirmed that this
passage in the book of Proverbs refers to Christ, but this only
shows us the more how easily we may be deceived in inferring
catholic consent from the testimony of a great number of
writers.

Hence if we adopt the views of our opponents, we may call
that one day an Apostolical tradition, and consequently a divine
revelation, which we find the next, by happening to meet with
some other remains of antiquity, to be nothing of the kind.

It is evident, then, that the notion that there is consentient tes-
timony to the doctrines of revelation even among the authors
that remain to us, is a mere dream of the imagination, and that
even as it respects the very highest points of faith.

And the discrepancy we have thus shown to exist in their state*
ments proves that we may have the consent of a number of Fa-
thers to that which had not the consent of the Church in its fa-
vour, and consequently that with the scanty remains we possess
of the writings of the antient Church, it is impossible to infer the
consent of the Church in any case, for though a doctrine may be
supported by many of the Fathers whose writings remain to usy
and not directly opposed in the other writings known to us, yet
this may be merely accidental from our not happening to possess
other works of the Fathers, or having the opportunity to know
the sentiments of others in the primitive Church, of which, we
must ever recollect, also, we have but a partial and limited re-
presentation in the writings of those who choose to become au-
thors, and who were many of them probably far less fitted to eive
a. sober and judicious account of the faith of the Church, than
many others who have left nothinebehind them. Hence we must
observe, that even if some of theTathers whose writings happen
to remain to us agreed together in any particular point, and the
rest were silent, which is the very utmost that the boasted ** ca-
tholic consent" of our opponents could amount to, this would be
wholly insufficient to assure us of such a consent of the whole

1 BoTM i^ di» *rtt Juu Toy Zoxo/uarra fnpt *nt ^opms iMirvc uptnufou fiton* if luu o Asnv^

9m. AdT. Eanom. lib. !▼. totti. i. p. 298.

• Homil. in princip. Prorerb. toQu ii. p. 99. See alio Adv. Eanom. lib. ii. §
SO. torn. i. p. 966.

1

2S6 PATBIfTlOAL TBADiriON

primitive church in the matter as could be to us a sure record
of the teaching of the Apostles, or be on any ground a divine in-
formant or authoritative guide.

But in facty though the theory put forward by our opponents
is that " catholic consent" only can be relied upon, (a testimony,
however, which by a voluntary self-deception they identify with
the consentient witness of the few remains of the Fathers that
happen to have come down to us) that which our opponents
practically rely upon to prove this consent, is often the dictum
of some half a dozen Fathers. In theory they hold it necessary
to establish the consent of the Fathers, but their practice is
totally different And in truth, they must be well aware that
otherwise they must give up their ground altogether, as both
their favourite Vincent of Lerins, and Bellarmine, will bear re-
luctant witness. For notwithstanding the magnificent rule pro-
posed by Vincent, that we should be guided in our search after
truth by what " everybody always everywhere" in the catholic
church testified respecting it, we find in the latter part of his
treatise, that his practical proof of the doctrine held by ** every-
body always every where*' may be derived from the testimony of
less than a dozen authors. And Bellarmine candidly admits that
of doctrine supported by the consentient testimony of all the Fa-
thers, an " example is hardly to be found," (vix invenitur exem-
plum,) but he thinks that if a few Fathers of great name have
supported it, and others when mentioning the subject have not
contradicted it, that will do as well.^ And thus our "divine infor-
mant,">< catholic consent," is practically the dictum of a few fal-
lible men.

Thb evident failure of the theory, when reduced to practice,
is probably the reason why the Tractators are so shy of drawing
out the proofs of " catholic consent" and traditive interpretations
of Scripture delivered by the unanimous voice of the primitive
church. Certainly their success in the cases upon which they
have ventured, has not, as we have just seen, been such as is
likely to encourage them to enter further into particulars than
may. be necessary. But one might suppose that maintaining, as
they do, that antiquity unanimously consents in the delivery of a
certain system of theology, they would be anxious to bring before
tfce public the proofs of such consent ; and beyond doubt they
would advance their cause much more, in the eyes of all impar-
tiaKmen, by so doing, than by those general and vague appeals

I Videtar sufficere ri aHqaot Patres magni nominii ezpreste id asterant, et
cetari nan coutradicani eum iamen ejua rei meminerint. Bellabm. De V. D. Ub.
iv, c. 0.

KO DIVira ISFOBXART.

S8B PATBIfTIOAL TBABITIOll

grouad for faith to build upon ; and as to Mr. Keble'i notion that
tbe Fathers at Nice affirmed that the doctrine there agreed apoo
had been taught in all their churches from tbe begioning, it oai
not the least particle of evidence to rest upon.

Or let them take the doctrine of the dirinity of the H0I7
Spirit, and show us the proofs of catholic consent in its favonri
for the first three centuries; and they will find, if they attempt
it, that both Basil and Jerome will laugh at them for their pains ;
the one telling them that tbe doctrine was passed over in ulence
and lefl: unexplained, and that some were anorthodoz respecting
it ; and the latter, that many through ignorance of the Scriptures,
and Lactantius among the number, erred respecting it.'

Again, then, I say to our opponents, you talk about cafliolic
consent and traditive interpretations of Scripture received hj
" the catholic church" for tbe whole Christian faith, produce

Jour proofs of such consent, deal no longer in vague generalities,
ut let us know bow many and what points of doctrine can be
thus proved, and present us with the proofs; and I will venture
to say, that the leanness anApartiality of the Catena, — where
some ten or a dozen men will appear as the uncommissioned
representatives of as many millions, and a few sentences (some
probably ambiguous and equivocal) of fallible men, pretending
to nothing more than to deliver what, to the best of their know-
ledge and belief, was tbe truth, will be delivered to us as an in-
felKble interpretation of Scripture, — will be the best answer in
itself to all the claims made for "tradition."

ly given from tbe writings of the early
hat there was much division of senti-
on the highest paints of faith, and con-
involved in very serious error. And
surprised that such was the case, in a
1 immrase number of distinct and tn-

Srimitive church T It mutt ever be
, as left by the A|>ostles, consisted of
:s, all independen^of each other ; and
or superior but tbe great Head of the
was responsible. Arcbbisbope, Palri-

pp. IM, 6. aboT*.

Ko Divim isrowuifT.

nrchs, and Popea were a craatioti of the church. There was no
common earthly head, nor even any representative aisembly, to
act as a check upon the prejudices aod fancies of men> Had
there even been such checks,, ezperieoce would bardlj warrant
us in ezpectii^ perfect unaoimi^ in the teaching of such a num-
ber of men as the pastors of the church even then amounted to.
For let me ask. Is there such consent, even among the teachers
of any one eingle body of Christians at this day, however full and
explicit their cimfeesion of failh may bel We have already
seen that Mr. Newman confesses, nay, strongly urges, that it u
not the case, even in our own church. Is it nott nien, most un-
reasonable to assume that such must have been the Case, in such a
body as the primitive church?

f^r bow was such unanimity to be obtained T True, in the
first instance every church was, no doubt, sound in the easentiala
of the faith. But the cases of Galatia, of Sardis and Laodicea,
prove how soon that orthodoxy might be exchanged G3r grievous
error. And how, I would ask, were such cases dealt with ? It
is easy to say that all the other churches that were sound in the
&ith might convene a representative council and excommunicate
those churches. But did they do so T Nay, was it possible for
them to do so, until, by the favour of the Emperor, they were
allowed to call tc^ther such an assembly 7 But such permisaion
was not given, nor consequently any such Coancil assembled, for
more than three centuries after the time of our Lord's incarna-
tion. There were, no doubt, local assemblies of bishops; but
these had aopretence for concluding the whole church by their
decinons. They had weight proportionable to the character and
conduct of the bishops of whom they were composed, and no
rrwre.

But our opponents reason as if the whole nominal and external
church, eonsistingHof all these various iadeoendent narts. had
been from the banning one united
were amenable to some common tribur
separated from the body upon anydefe
dox faith ; a notion which is very pretl
but utterly groundless.

Further, it is obvious that in tbote de
which had not been particularly the st

church, the early Fathers might easily express themselves so as
to appear favourable to views which they did not entertain.
For instance, it was easy for writers who preceded the Arian and
Nestorian and simitar controversies, even though orthodox, to
have expressed thenuelvea in language apparently favourable to
those errors. These are slips " quas aut incuria fudU, — aut
humana parum cavit nalura," and which oo poind not in thn

VOL. K BB .

800 PATBI0TIGAL THADITIOIC

immediate cootemplation of the writer, are sarelj io the case of
human authors by no means uncommon. And certainly tliey are
not likely to have given^ as a body, such statements as should
serve for the refutation of errors not contemplated bv them. And
if from probability we come to fact, we find this to be the case.

Moreover, most of their writings are controversial, where in
zealously refuting one error, men are very apt to use language
easy of application in favour of some opposite error not in their
minds at the time. And to this, in the infancy of the church,
before the rise of aInKist all the great controversies that have
agitated her, men would be peculiarly liable. Extracts, there-
fore, from such writings, upon points not in the contemplation of
the author, are very unsatisfactory arguments. It would be easy
to bring examples to show this ; but the objection is so manifestly
well-grounded, and the point has been already so well illustrated
by Daille, that I need not here «ilarge upon it^

I might add, and not without reason, as the author just refer*
red to has shown,* that upon these occasions they were sometimes
too apt to strive for victory rather than truth : but I have no
wish to depend upon such arguments, and would rather hope
that such cases were not of frequent occurrence, notwithstanding
the ingenuous statements of Jerome.'

Add to this« that they spoke sometimes witK an intentional
obscurity, in order to veil their meaning from the uninitiated.^

Furtlier, it is undeniable that their language is often of a high-
ly coloured, exaggerated, and rhetorical kind, but little cakula*
ted to give a sober and correct view of Christian truth. They
speak in the language they had learned in the schools of philoso-
phy and rhetoric, suited rather to attract and dazzle the hearer,
than to give him definite notions respecting the fieiith.^

•Now all these facts render it nnost improbable that we should
be able to obtain from them any clear and definite consentient
testimony to the faith. Nay, as we have already seen, the state-
ments of many of the Ante*Nicene Fathers are accused of direct
error, by some of the great lights of the fourth and fifth centuries.
And if I am asked, as Ruffinus seemed disposed to ask Jerome,
<' How it is that there are some errors in their books," I reply
with Jerome, *^ If I shall answer that I know not the causes of
those errors, I will not immediately set them down as heretics.

1 See Dailitt, On the qm of Uia PaUien, bk. i. c 6. Bngl. e^. pp. 94—7. 1 refer
f tkit «»Hb, Ml 09 agremmg' inaUiU $iatement$t kmt oi iu tka$ emUaimf mu€k
valuable wtatier en thie eul^eet,

t lb. bk. i. e. 6. Fngl. fd. pp. US— 16.

3 Ep. td Pammacb. 48. (aL 60.) 5 18. torn. i. eol. 288. ad. Tallars. Vanat.

^ Dailla, bk. i. c. 6. pp. 88, 4., and c 6. pp. 107—10.

* 6aa afain DaiUa, bk. i. c 6. pp. 86—6.

sro Diniii tifyosMAinr. 291

For it may be that either they simply erred, or wrote with another
meaaiDg, or their writings were gradually corrupted by unskilful
copyists ; or certainly before that that meridian d8eaK>n, Arius^
arose in Alexandria, they may have spoken some things innocent-
ly and incautiously, and that cannot escape the calumny of per-
verse men/'^ But then I beg to inquire, with our learned Bishop
Stillingfleet, '' How comes the testimony of erroneous or unwary
writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of Scrip-
ture ?"•

To establish, also, such a consent as our opponents speak of,
namely, such as can practically end controversies, we need pc
culiar clearness and accuracy of expression^ such as can fix the
meaning of the passage even in the view of those who would be
glad to mterpret it otherwise. And to claim consent in favour
of what we hold to be the orthodox view, while at the same
time we are compelled to admit that the testimonies of some
Fathers on the subject are of doubtful meaning, and those of
others expressed so as to appear rather to favour the opposite
view, is merely to expose ourselves to just ridicule. If the Fa-
thers have used Unguarded and incorrect language, as far as
they have done so, so far it is absurd to claim their consent, or to
go to them for a definite decision on anj point hi controversy.

It must be added, without any wish to depreciate the value
of those remains of antiquity we possess, that it is more than
probable that there were hundreds of bishops in the primitive
church far better able to give us a correct view of the faith of
the church, than some of those whose writings happen to have
come down to us. A man may be very eloquent, who is not
very correct in his theological statements, as all ages of the
church have shown us. The learning of a converted philoso-
pher may give him great weight and celebrity in his generation,
but he is not generally the best teacher of the Christian faith.

Nay, is it within the bounds of probability, however high a
view we take of the character of the early Christians, that the
oral instructions of the Apostles should be perpetuated by the
consentient testimony of such a body of fallible men as com-
posed the nominal and external catholic church T Liable as some
at least of those who were merely nominal Christians would be

1 Qoomodo, inquies, in librii eoram Titiota Donnalla sunt t Si me eamat
▼itiorom neecira ret pondero, non ftaUm illof hsreticos jadicabo. Fieri enim po-
teet, at Tel eiinpUeiter em?ei;^t, Tel alio senea ecripeerint, Tel a librariie im peri-
tit eonim paoUtim acripta corrapla siot. Vel ceite anteqaam in Alexandria
qnaai dnmoninm meridiannm Arioe naaceretor, innocenter qa»dam et minaa
eante loqnnti rant, et qua non poasint perreraorum hominnm calamniam declinare.
Binov. adT. Raff. lib. ii, § 17. torn. ii. col. 508, 9.

9 0ae p. S17 aboTt.

T'

293 PATBISTiCAL TBAMTIOlf

to misunderstand and misreport, liable as all would be to use in*
adequate and uncertain language, and by a change of phraseolo*
gy open the door to errors, which they onigbt never contemplate,
bow is it possible that all these should c<m8ent in giving a definite
and certain testimony for the true faith and that alone, and one
moreover so definite as distinctly to exclude and negative all
error ?

Further, is it likely that the Apostles should have left with
the church either interpretations of Scripture or statements of
doctrine more suitable tfian Scripture to n^ative all the various
heresies that might arise in the church ? i et in order to magni-
fy the authority of the church as an infallible witness of the
Christian faith in all controversies, she is supposed.to be the de-
positary of oral Apostolical teaching sufficiently definite and ex-
tensive to do this, and all her members are said to have ev^r
consented in handing down this Apostolical tradition.

For instance, in the case of the Arian heresy, we maintain
that Scripture bears a clear testimony against it, the direct and
necessary inference from its teaching being that the Son is con-
substantial with the Father. No, say our opponents, Scripture
is not clear upon the point, but << tradition'' tells us that the true
-TloctrtneiB^tbatiiieBon iB^ijcmvud^ranrta/ with the Father, and
this express testimony is alone sufficient to end the controversy.
The same for the Nestorian, Eutychian, Pelagian, and in fact all
the other errors that ever arose in the church. So thatttie sup^
position is, that the Apostles not only published the true faith, as
we find it delivered in the Scriptures, but also in their oral in-
structions added such a description of it as would suit, not mere-
ly as Scripture does for an inferential condemnation, but for an
express^ and verbal, and direct condemnation of every error
that would arise. Nay more, not only that the Apostles did this,,
but that this teaching in al] its fulness was perpetuated) and
handed down for centuries, ready to be applied as each error
arose. Is this likely ? True, our opponents attempt to prove
that it was so a posteriori, namely, from the argument of the
consent o( all the churches, which, they say, is not to be account-
ed for but on such a supposition. With this argument we have
already dealt, and shown that there is no such <x>n8ent, but we
wish here still further to point the attention of the reader to the
extreme improbability of the hypothesis which this argument of
our opponents calls into existence.

However much, then, we must regret the absence of such a
consentient testinKmy in favour of the full orthodox faith, it is not
a matter which, under the circumstances of the case, oudit to
occasion us any surprise. Rather is it a matter of astonisnment
that any one should expect to find it, and still more to assume it

NO DtirilfB INFOmXAKT. 299

without, and even against evidence. Its absence is no evidence
that there has not been in all ages a church of Christ, a cooi-
panj of Ceuthful people in the world. Nay, it is no evidence that
there have not always been local communities of Christians pub*
licly professing the true faith. While Origen was venting his
errors at Alexandria, and for his learning and eloquence was
followed and admired by vast numbers in his time, and his errors
never publicly condemned, there may nevertheless have been, at
the same period, and no doubt were, many churches that retain-
ed the true faith. And the same we may say in the case of
others who remained, notwithstanding their errors, free from any
public condemnation by any body of men calling itself the church..
At a time when there were no General Councils of the church to
adjudicate on such matters, the difficulties were great in the way
of any public censure being issued by the whole church. And
probably much depended upon the weight and influence of the
individual among the neighbouring bishops. If he was sanc-
tioned by them, that is, if the error had spread but a little, then
where was the tribunal that ever did or could call him to account?
True, it does seem surprising that no public censure should have
been passed upon Origen's doctrines in bis life-time by the sound
portion of the church. But such is the fact, at least as far a«
appears from the documents that have come down to us.

And let me ask. Had the other churches passed any public
censure upon the churches of Sardis and Laodicea when our
Lord rebuked them by his Apostle ? We know of nothing of the
kind ; nor is it likely. Nevertheless the errors of these unex-
communicated members of the catholic church did not prevent
there being other members sound in the faith. Nay, even in
those kx:al communities that were sound in the faith there might
be those who propagated erroneous doctrines, and yet aided by
circumstances escaped a public condemnation, as even Jezebel
was suffered to teach and seduce others to error in the church of
Thyatira. (Rev. ii. 20.)

The notion, then, that all the members of the nominal and
external catholic church must have given a consentient testi**
mony respecting the faith, is on the face of it most improbable.
And if all the writers whose remains we possess had done so, it
would only have shown how extremely /^ar/ia/ a representation
we have in them of the sentiments of the antient Christians.

In this want of consent, also, there is nothing at all to alarm
the Chrbtian, nothing to show that the promises of Christ have
failed, nothing to show that there has not been in all ages a com-
pany of faithful people visible to the world as Christ's mystical
body, nothing to obscure the light of divine revelation in the
Holy Scriptures or the teaching of those more orthodox portions

B B*

394 PAnnricix TBAnmoK

■

of Qirni's fidlowere that have sbone as Ughts in the world, boM*
ing forth the word of truth, nothing in fact to disturb any, bat
one who wishes to erect upon earth an infallible tribunal to
which the consciences of men are to bow in blind submiarion,

y

8BOTIOK Vly— THE VlfCpSTAnfTIBS AUD DIFnOVLTIES WITH WHICH
BVBir THAT SMALL AND PABTIAL CONSSlTr WHICH MAT 8QMBTIMS8 BH
ATTAUf ABLE AND IS CALLED BT OUB 0FPONBNT8 *' CATHOLIC CON*
SENT," IS EMBABBA88ED. ,

Let US now proceed to consider niore particularlj the value
of that partial consent that niaj perhaps be in some cases at-
tainable, and which is dignified bj the Tractators with the name
of " catholic consent"

And first, we must observe, that when thej speak of such con*
sent as necessarily showing that the truth of which it testifies
had its origin with the Apples, they seem to be making a hastj
and unwarranted assumption. Even allowing such consent to be
more general than we can prove it to be, still it by no means
follows that it is due to Apostolical teaching. Suj^posing it to be
strictly universal^ then indeed we need not hesitate to admit
such an inference. But as for any praveable consent, it might
originate as easily in the imaginations of the natural mind as in
Apostolical teaching. It needs no proof that any comiptionft of
the faith suited to the natural feelings and prejudices of the hu-
man mind would be likely at the very earliest period of the church
to obtain extensive circulation, especially if they were supported
by a few able and influential men. No man who knows any
thing of history or human nature needs to be told how great the
influence of even one able and zealous individual may be over a
whole community, especially if his teaching falls in with the bias
of human nature. Nor wUl any Christian deny, that in a vast
body such as that which composed the nominal Christian Church,
the tendency would be towards a corruption of the faith.

But a still greater difficulty with respect to any producible
consent is, that in many cases the expressions used are uncertain
and of doubtful meaning, and open to different and even opposite
interpretations.

We have already noticed, in the last section, how little suited
many of the writings of the Fathers are, from their loose and in*
accurate and rhetorical phraseology, their obscurity, and other
similar causes, to give a definitive sentence on controverted points;
and especially in the case of controversies subsequent to their

NO DITIHS UfFOBMAHT. 390

times where the point id dispute was, as (ar as we know, never
distinctly brought under their notice. And this will be found to
render every attempt to show tliat they have borne a consentient
testimony in favour of any particular view ahnosi useless and
nugatory. For passages of doubtful meaning will of course be
interpreted according to the view of the reader. And hence, as
we have already observed, the Fathers are quoted on all sides.
Thus, for instance, Bbhop Bull claims them for his doctrine of
justifkation, as does Bishop Jebb,^ while others claim them for
the doctrine of the Reformers onr this point.' Granted that these
opposing references do not prove that the Fathers dissent from
each other on the point, (though upon our opponents' principles
they would seem to do so) is it not nevertheless undeniable that
their loose, uncertain, and inaccurate expressions give just ground
for such oppodlte references?

Moreover, almost all^e great controversies that have ag|ta*
ted the church have been raised since the tUrd century. The
writers, therefore, that preceded the fourth century wrote with**
out any eye to such controversies. Their notices therefore of such
points are generally indirect and incidental. They no more give
a verbally definitive sentence respecting them than Scripture.
They cannot serve, then, for determining them, for we cannot
reason inferentially from them as we can from Scripture, because
no man holds their words to be inspired, or their indirect obser-
vations to be sufficiently to be depended upon for such a pur-
pose. In human writings we meet with much that, if applied to
a point not in the mind of the writer at the time, would convev
a very false impression of his views respecting it. With the wri«
tings of the early Fathers, therefore, there is on almost every
point this drawback, that it had either not been mooted in their
times, or was not in their immediate contemplation when they
wrote, and consequently that they may have expressed them-
selves differently to what they would have done had the point in
question been immediately before them. With Scripture the
case is different That is perfect as indited by an Omniscient
Being. From that we may safely reason inferentially, and there
is no drawback to weaken the force of the inference.

Mow much of this is admitted by the lovers of the Fathers, but ^

then they seem to think that the^ may be permitted to decide V7

upon the allowances to be made for it, and so by a little inge-
nuity contrive to bring even doubtful and indirect passages among
their witnesses for catholic consent And if we come to investi-
gate what is put forth as the catholic consent of the Fathers in

I 8m Keblo't <* Catens." p. 1 U.
> 8m Corpoi coDlmionaiii.

296 PATKliTIOAli TSADITIOX

behalf of any doctrine, we shall generally ind that it has been
obtained by a proceas strongly resembling that for which the bed
of Procrustes is famed. The compiler having a model of doctrine
in his own mind, finds perhaps some statements that seem exact-
ly to fit his standard, but for his "catholic consent'^ will encoun-
ter many that are not so well suited to it Nevertheless, the
haste of the author when he wrote, his ignorance of the contro-
versies that were afterwards to arise, the circumstances of the
times or of the treatise in which he is writing, will affi>rd many
excellent reasons why his statements should be either too long or
too short It is therefore a kindness to him, for which he would
no doubt be grateful could he know of it, to pare down his state-
ments if they are somewhat too large, or put them on the rack if
they need a little stretching, to make them speak the language of
perfect orthodoxy. And so by a little contrivance we get a Ca-
tena, that to those who made it is very convincing, but some-
how or other eeoerally fails in producing much effect upon oppo-
nents able and willing to iovestigate for themselves. And the ar-
gument from patristical testimony, in itself a valuable one, when
thus pressed too far sometimes loses even its legitimate weight

To the generality of readers, however, it must be admitted^
such a mode of arguing often answers very well. And if we may
judge what people are ready to believe when it suits their fancy
from what writers have said on this subject, we need never be at
a loss for the support of the primitive church. For if all other
methods of obtaining it should fail, the Benedictine Editors of
Hilary seem to me to have given us a sure recipe for it, in the
following very ingenious remark when speaking on the doctrine
of the millennium. Being of course anti-millennarians, and there-
fore desirous of finding some support in that age for their own
view, they remark, — ** Moreover, that our doctrine was already
received in their age, is proved by the efibrts of Irenaeus and
Tertullian to root it out of the minds of the faithful.'" What-
ever the Fathers may say, then, we can thus get good support
for the doctrine we wish to maintain. If the Fathers uphold it,
well and good; if they oppose it, then their efibrts to root it out
of the minds of the faithful show that the faithful believed it, and
so either way we get good testimony for it. A little ingenuity
will do great things in this matter.

Moreover, it is admitted, that instead of having positive state-
ments from all the Fathers to depend upon for our " catholic con-
sent," we must always content ourselves with having from some
of them the testimony of silence^ because they have only written

I Immo fidem nottram jam sto kao recepUm probat Irenei atqoe TertnlUani
labor at earn ex animia fideiium eztorqoeaiit. Pr»f. ad Hilar. PictaT. p. 68.

mo DIVIKB INVOBMAHT. 307

OD the particular poiDto xn^hich were brought more imme^telj
uoder tbetr notice. But this surely is a strange demand to make
upon us, that because six persons have given their testimony for ^
a doctrine^ and three are aitc^ether silent about it, we are to be so
sure that we have the consent of all the nine in the matter, that
we are to make that consent the foundation for our belief that the
doctrine is true.

Further, we must observe that in matters of church polity no-
thing would be more likely than that the Fathers should suppose
and represent all that the Apostles had ordained, to be so abeo-
lutely essential to the being of a church, that that could be nd
church that wanted any thing of the kind, speaking only in con-
templation o( the times then present, and never dreaming of such
a different state of things in the church as was to be found pre-
vious to the Reformation. It was very natural that, without
any authority for the statement from the Apostles, they should
so represent the matter. It would be the notion sure to be en-
tertained, and one which probably for the time and circumstan-
ces contemplated was the correct view of the case, though with
our experience and in our times they might have judged differ-
ently. We cannot therefore conclude that such a notion was ne-,
cessarily derived from the Apostles. It is obvious that even an-
tient consent on such a point, if it could be proved, would not
show derivation from the Apoatles, because ii ib easily accounted
(w on other grounds* What Ignatius has said, for instance, on
this subject m his Epistles, -was said with reference to the circum-i
stances of his day, and is not forthwith to be applied as a test by
which the churches that were the offipring or the. Reformation
are to be tried. Granting fully that under ordinary circumstan-
ces the ordinances of the Apostles ought to be adhered to, it ne»
vertheless does not follow that under extraordinary circumstances
they are so necessary as to unchurch all who do not comply with
them. For such a view of the case we want direct Apostolical
authority, and are not to be bound by those patristical represent
tations which might be very just and true for the time then
present, but are not applicable to a completely altered state oi
things. In the absence of any direct Apostolical injunction, the
Christian revelation mmt be looked aicts a tohole^ and the pre-
servation of its essentialsi as delivered to us in the Scriptures, ij
be our first and great concern, to which every thing else must
give way.

Moreover, in some important points the Fathers changed their
minds, holding different views on the subject at different periods
of life.

We have a whole treatise of Augustine written at the close
of his life, entitled his ** RetractatkN^" in which he corrects the

1

S98 PATBUTICAL TBABlTIOlf

statements made in his former works. We find similar changes
o( sentiment in other Fathers, and passages in their works con-
tradictorj to each other. And hence an exception is ofler taken,
and jastlj, to passages adduced on any controverted point, on the
ground that they were written when the author's judgment was
immature. And hence Vincentius himself requires that our judg«
ment be formed from what the Fsithers persevered in maintain*'
ing, and held to the end of their course.*

To perfect our catholic consent, then, we ought to know
whether the authors we quote persevered in the view maintained
in the passages we refer to, and were of sufficiently ripe judgment
i;dien they wrote to make their testimony valid. But how we
are to ascertain this it is difficult to understand. Few have been
M ingenuous as Augustine to confess such change of views. And
if they had, it is a mere matter of chance as to such confessions
codfiing down to us. Jerome tells us' that such a letter was writ-
ten by Origen to Fabianus, bishop of Rome, expressing his regret
at having written such things as he had ; but we know nothing
of this letter, but from this incidental notice of it by Jerome.

And this variation of sentiment, by the way, as far as it exists,
completely overthrows the idea of there being any traditionary
teaching pervading the whole church upon the point; for had
there been, there would have been no room for such change of
views. So that it not only shows us the difficulty of proving con-
sent, but also that there was not such consent, and that the views
held varied with the private opinions apd judgaient of indi-
viduals.

Again ; to know the degree of value to be attached to even a
consentient testimony of the Fathers in favour of any view, we
ought also to know whether the point be a fundamental article ;
because otherwise we can have no security against even such a
testimony being erroneous.

Now, how we can ascertain thb, but for those points which
are laid down in Scripture as fundamental, (and for which, there-
fore, we need not patristical testimony,) I know not ; for it does
not by any means follow, that because the Fathers were not
likely to have all erred in fundamentals, therefore they could
not be wrong in determining what points are fundamental And
Q if we were willing to admit their testimony on the point, we

should be unable to get anything like a sufficient testimony from
thefai; and at most the brief summaries of IrenaeusandTertullian

« Pef90wranter temuite, fcripOBie, dooniiee. Gommonit. § 3. (al. 4) et S ^o
(al. 89.)

8 Ipaa Odgenea in epiatola qnam aeribit ad Fabianom Romano nrbia epiico-
pom pemtentiam agit ear talia aoripaerit. Hieron. Ep. ad Pammach. et Ocean.
^ »4, (al 0i*} Tom. i. ool. 681, 8. (Vail. Yen.)

90 wrtm iifFOftHANT. 299 tti

would be all that could be established as fundameotal, by such
testimony.

Lastly, our opponents, to avoid the obligation of admitting any«
thing they dislike, have themselves added to these another dim-
culty, and one which will be found altogether insuperable.

There are some points, it seems, to which the Fathers have
borne what our opponents, upon their own principles, are obliged
to recognize as a consentient testimony, but which, nevertheless,
are not quite to their mind, (some specimens of which we shall
give hereafter ;) and accordingly they have been compelled to
maintain that not only must we have catholic consent, but that
catholic consent must be accompanied with the declaration that
it is ^ traditionary teaching."

It is amusing, indeed, to see the straits to which our adver-
saries are reduced, when thev come to the practical application
of their principles to particular points. This may be remarka-
bly seen in the Tract on Purgatory.* Speaking of Purgatory,
tliey day, — ** Now it can only be an article of faith, supposing it
is held by antiquity, and that unanimously. For such things only
are we allowea to maintain, as come to us from the Apostles ;
and that only (ordinarily speaking) has evidence of so originating,
wbich is witnessed by a number of independent witnesses in the
early church. We must have the unanimous ' consent of doc-
tors,* as an assurance that the Apostles have spoken." (p. 25.)
Here, then, it is evident that what they mean by <' the unanimous
consent of Doctors," is the consent of ** a number." But, being
obliged afterwards to admit that a number of the best witnesses
among the Fathers speak contrary to their views, they are driven
to the necessity of making some further nice dbtinctions in the
matter, and shifting their rule to one which it is still more impossi-
ble to apply. ** What has been said," observes the Tractator^
** will illustrate what is meant by Catholic Tradition, and how it
may be received, without binding-us to accept everything which
the Fathers say. It must be catholic, to be of authority ; that is,
all the writers who niention the subject, must agree t(^etber in
their view of it, or the exceptions, if there be any, must be such as
probare regulam. And again, they must profess it is tradition-
ary teaching. For instance, supposing all the Fathers agreed to*
get her in thier interpretation qf a certain textj I consider th^rt *
agreement would invest that interpretation with such a degree of
authority, as to make it at first sight most rash (to say the very
least) to difier from them ; yet it is conceivable that on some
pointSy as the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy ^ they
might be mistaken. It is abstractedly conceivable that a mo-

1 Tneto for the TimM, No. 79.

L

r

300 PATUtncAL TSADinoir

dern commentator might, on certain occauons, plausibly justify
his dissent from (hem :-^this is conceivable, I say, unless they
were explaining a doctrine of the Creed, which is otherwise
known to come from the Apostles,-— or professed (which would
BE bquiyalbnt) that such an interpretation had ever been re-
ceived in their respective churches, as coning from the Apostles.
Catholic tradition is something more than catholic teaching* Great
as is the authority of the latter (and we cannot well put it too
high) tradition is something beyond it TTiis remark is in point
here^ for it laoHT bb oribctbd that so many Fathers agree
together in the notion of a last-day Purgatory^ that toere it
not for the accident of others speaking differently, tae should
certainly have received it as Catholic TrcuHHon* I answer,
no; whatever the worth of so many witnesses would have been,
— and it certainly for safety's sake ou^ht to have been taken for
very much, — still Origen, Hilary, Amorose, and the rest, do not
approximate in their remarks to the authoritative language in
which they would speak of the Trinity, x>r the benefits of J3ap-
tism. They do not prqfess to he delivering an article of the
faith once delivered to the saintsJ* (pp. 87, 8.)

Hereby their own hands, the very foundation of their system is
all but overthrown. For if, as is here allowed, the unanimous con-
sent of the Fathers that remain to us is not a sufficient proof that
what is so delivered came from the Apostles, but it is required
that they should also unanimously declare that what they were
delivering did come from the Apostles by a successional delivery
of it from one to another, then is the notion of aky doctrine or
interpretation of Scripture being so established, preposterous in-
deed. But this unanimous declaration must of course be, as in
the former case, the declaration of '^ a number.'' And we have
already given various instances in which this declaration was
made by " a number ;" and yet, in the judgment of " a number^
both of antient and modern divines, our opponents included, was
made without foundation.^

1 There are tome remarks on this matter by an able writer in the BrHiah Maga-
zine for February, 1840, who sigot himeelf 8. T. R., ao jodiciona and pertinent to
oor present porpose, that I cannot bat direct the attention of the reader to them.
Speaking of the Tract above quoted, he says, — ** The principles of the Oxford
Tract Writers in this tract may lead to every corruption, they being unhappily
oppoeed to the spirit of a Canon which I quoted in a previous letter. Whether
they are harmless or not to their authors I do not know, but I leel sore thai they
are capable of being very dangerous when imbibed and acted upon by others.
Upon that Canon Dr. Waterland observes, what cannot be too often repeated,
that * It does not order that the clergy ahoold teach whatsoever had been taught by
Fathera ; no; that would have been setting up a new rale of faith: neittMrdees
it say that they shall teach whatsoever the Fathers had collected from Scripture;
no; that would have been making them infallible interpreters or infallible reason*
tera.* And these obeervations, I sobmit, apply, Aow^rr numer^ut Meat Fathert

HO DnriRB IHFOBXAHT. 901

In laying down these nice dbtinctions, I need bardlj observe
that our opponents are as usual following the guidance of their

miy be. < Tlie doctrine most be^rtl found in ficriptnre ; only to be more ee-
coie tbet we have foand it tbete, the Fathers ere to be celled is, to be, as it were,
censtant cheeks upon the preeamptioa or wantonoess of private interpretation,
(vet T. p. 317.) But the Oxford Tract writers in this Ttmsi, by down mles which
do not reaoire that the doctrine should be first coUeetedontof the doctrine of the
Old and New Testaments ; they dispense with them ; they rely upon what thbt

CAU. TU GBVEOn, WBICH IS PBACTICALLT OXETAIir WEITBRS WHOV THBT

KAT caooSB TO CALL THB cBUBCH. They tsU US, (p. 26.) that *8uch things only,'
(speaking of Articlee of faith,) * are we allowed to maintain as come to us from
the Apostles; and that only, ordinarily speaking, haa CTidence of so originating
which is witnessed by a number of independent witnesses in the early church.
We most have the unanimous consent of dockers as an assursnee that the Apos-
tles hsTe spoken.' This is their rule for eelectcng doctrine, and calling it Apos«
tolieal, in eases where the Holy Scriptures are silent. Let us examine it. The word
' nnanimons' coupled with the * eariy church' m the ether eentence must I shoald
think be intended lo mean, not merely ananimous consent of a particolar age,
but >ef ages, especially some of the eariy ones, in order to give some appearance of
a connexion with the Apostlee ; and if so, the word, * unanimous,' must be eon-
straed liberally, and mean what is said tn the former ssntenoe, *a nwnber,* But
then if ii be taken liberally, a question will arise^ How many Fathers will make
up this number, and on what principle are they to be selected t And also out of
what eentnries am they to be gathered 1 And theee questions are not to be de-
cided by merely their opinion; they moat be So decided as to leave no proper fear
that we can fall into error. We heve a right to reqnire this, as, on gtring ap the
guidance of Holy Writ, we are promised, and ought to have, very clear and intelli-
gible Knee, the matter depending U(K>n them being no less than ApottoUeal doC'^
trine. But if the Oxford Tract writers cantt<>t so answer the queetioos, not only is
their rale worthless, but they are opening the door for the maintenance of any early '
opinion, however erroneous, (since there arefev that have net ieveral patrohe in
the Jiret four or five centurie^t) which may suit the taste of the theologian. The
Oxford Traet writers themselves felt this diflScofty in respect of the doctrine of a
judgment purgatory, since it might be said that that doctrine being witneseed by ao
many doctors must be believed, and yet it is erroneouo / and therefore, in pp. 87,
38, they make a supplemental rule by distinguishing between what they caU
* eatholic teaching,' apd * catholic tradition ;' and affirm, that not only mast all
the fathers * who mention a doctrine agree in their view of it, or the exceptions,
if 4heve be any, most brsoch as probare regulam^ but also they muet profess it to
be traditional teaching.' Now! without stopping to inquire what those unlucky
excaptione may he, (unlucky as leaving matters still in uncertainty,) let us see the
way in which they practically ap^iy it to the overthrow of i judgment purgatory.
^They altew that the worth of so many Fathers would, for safety's sake, be very
^great, but that * they do net approiimate in their remarks to the authoritative
language in which they would speak of the Trinity or the benefits of baptism.
They do not prufoss to be dettveHng an article of the faith once delivered to the
sainta. Now, since the Fathers in geberal express their doctrines rather cond-
deatly, or at least make no such diffirence as would aff>rd those • clear and in-
telligible Jines' which are promised, and which ought in a case of suchimpor-
tanee to he gi,ven to us,*-^hUe such a distinctioB, if not moot clearly marked,
attews a very unfortunate lioense for abuse,— I juppOee that the Oxford Tract
wfitsffs mean that nothing ii to he received as unwritten apoeiolical doelrine but
what is dedardl inae mai^ words to be traditional teaoUng by. this « nmber of
mkeftoimi witnesses in the early diureh/ If en, heiu wt havu^ apptM«tly, %
iui0bh tala, ani if tl he hastily read, as noet hooka and traali tmrnowm days,
ilwUtpMifeiy ««m hut u^oiecieeaiaspeotto will,! foir,gh»w thai Wiigf,'

VOL* !• ao

VATIimCJJ. nXDITIOlT

friends the Romaniiti. " Our adveriHries require two things to
mfike the teatimonj of the Fathen worthy to be relied on," says

■r il mwr AiiplT, b«i(if parh^ nads for it, to Ilia <■■■ of tlMJndpnaiitpDrfatan,
it will not utawet o«i purpoac, tha dbcovarjr itf nowritlan afioalolical dootrina, ah'
laaa wa are aU» ture Uial whaltvr tba Indiiidaal fathara and tha hWiopa of A*
catbidie ekarch leU m it tradMmal UaeUng, i* in tmik apttiHtml d^ctriim.
Will tha Qifard TraM wiiUra aAm thia 1 Parfaapa Ibaj wilt. Bat trill ttwy
fnviif Uotil thai bedooe, wa bave oo 'elaar aad iouUitMa liM*>' AnoBf
111* Tariona doetriaaa, aod maoj of than amHiooiia, lika (be jndgnMnt pntffitmj,
wbtch tba hiban bald, the laochatoge of t»th will atill, praetioJIjr, ba lit tote */
tht Mfuircr. Ha*lfiK hut tha aura (aUanca of H0I7 Writ, h* will adopt aMm
what b* likea or what he tbioka rigbl in all the waDlouwaa or waakoaaa of pri-
vate jodinMDl.

Havlai Ibu anoritwd tbeae rolaa, ud aaan, I Ihiak, bow vair inaofficiiBt tha;

aia for (he dUeovery of auwrittoB apoatoUcal doctrine, and how liable, on tba

otbar band, th«j an to b« abuiad to tba auialMianca of error, M n* aaa bow tba

Oxford Trad wrilara an able, whan an arroasooi doctrine ia advaDoad againat

tban, to neat it. How do thaj aiaet the Homaniit, for inataBee, on thia doatrisa

•f pBriator; 1 Tba Ho); Scripturea,— ihoaa ' aafa and aubatanlial bolwaiW—

not baiag reqoirad bf them, not evao their taatiioonj thnngb tba light of atflr

Gbriatian wiitingi, thajr have notbiog wbarewiih to lopal tba Roaaotrt bat tbaaa

two arguBaota: Dm, ibat tha hthan adduced, ihoogb tMcbing MOt* than thwa

aekaa, do not Ivacb parptof^ ; and neondj, ibM Ibeir Matiinoajr la eontndfo-

lory. A KoDanin. t think, would aorile, and mj to tban, ' (iMIlaman, jm d*

not reqaire the doclilna to ba aaen io Uia Bcriptoraa, ae row mrn ia not tbo*;

naitbar do jdu rcqoire it to ba aega in the fathera of tba two firat oantmiaa, aa

yoat owa iaool thora. No* in tha (bird eaotarj we ban all tbe 'iiidepeiident

witoaaaaa' that eiiM in auppoit of a«r doctrine. It ma; be trve tfaat each witaa»

doia bM in all pointa full]' eihibii it h it i> mw defined, jM all piawm mom por*

tbo« of h. And allow me 10 reeal to joor recollactioti yoar own «fii>ian, that -

tkt mtrt diffate Itac/iing a/ a hier aft mag fairly be etntidertd at tMe dat da-

viUpmeai tftht brief and tt^etttitut dtttrirud declantUttu if anetO^tT pari»4t

I rooal thia with the greaMr pleaioFt, aince it ia ao well auppoited hj aa inalanM

of joar owa connactad wilh our praaent aabjact. I alloda to a paaaage r*forr«4

toio lb* Briuih Critic, No. tS, p. 73, fram tlia eFualle of ItMtioa to the Maf

Dewani, ^ 9. . . . 'I'hii panage 70a ory properlji, ai we RomaniMa eanaidM,

addooa aa an appareni racagnitiaa bj Ignatiiia. of (ha doctrine more &1II; d«ml-

oped in later timaa of the Limbua Patrum. Now, if tbi« paaaaga, which. It mtlat

ba eoBdraaoil. ii aomrwhat indiatioct, eihibitinf at tbe moat bat a faint outllD* of

one portion tX the doctrine, and which tha generiUtj of protaalanta, not ao fraa

from^rfJBdieetajauiaalfaa, woald reject attogathor aa baring nothiag to do with

it, I aij, if a auch pavage, w iodiatinct add ao dabetlTe, ba admilt^ by jon aa

BppareotJy raeofntainf and aanotikMiing the non fhll darelofMt «f a lal«r age,

ir Bvidcnoa for tha doctrine of purgatory t I OMHt

the three ftm centariaa are eoncenMd, (and if yoti

inquiry fnrtbar down,) dl tba wtitara who ' MMtiMi'

na in their aiew of it, each of ibon otbibiliug lOMa

sirine ; and that, cooaaqooiily, ihla may fairiy be em*

■itiad eaaea in which, in the tilaoce of the apoatoUe

ant Mmnnc* tbat tbe apaatka have ap<Aen.' Aa a

ria* i«li on, nd w« hate mora wrilsra, wa tia*e ala*

re Tiawa of the dootoDe, which an able na, aa in iba enaa

nfnilytaeihibitit; btu aappoitad aa dkaan «wly aad

r and more fdlly 4a*ebped onaa, Utair eridaMM mfM*

avr «ommon prinoiplaa, ba deemed cendaatva. Am4

with' Mpast to year Mber algaciioM, if it bnaaoy foN*UBli,it i>iU bafotal 1*.

HO vmm ivfcuauxn. 308

Placette ;^ ** first, tlott they coMent, and secondly, that they do
not naerely propose what seems most trae to themselves, but testi-
fy moreover that what they teach was either delivered by Christ,
or is of faith) or which is all one, the opposite of it heresy. If
either of these fail, then their testimony is not secure. The first
condition is required by many, and particularly by Alphonsus a
Castro, who, inquiring out the ways whereby a proposition may
be convinced to be lieretical, in the fourth place assigns * the
unanimous consent of all the Fathers who have written upon that
argument.' The latter condition is made necessary by many
more, Driedo tells us the authority of the Fathers is of no value

* any otherwise than as they demonstrate their opinion either
from the canonical Scriptures or the belief of the universal church
nnce the Apostles' times ; and that they do not always deliver
their sense as matters of faith, but by way of judgment, opinion,
and probable reason,' " &c, ** Both conditions are required by
Canus and Bannes, who, layine ^wn rules whereby true tradi-
tions may be discerned from false, both assign this in the second

1»lace and in the same words ; * If the Fathers have unanimously
rom the beginning all along the succession of their times held any
article of faith, and refuted the contrary as heretical.' Bellar-
mine and Gretser give this for their fourth rule, — * When all the
doctors of the chiurch teach anything by common consent to have
descended from Apostolical tradition, either gathered together in

a Council or each one ap^rt in their writings' Marti*

oonus, that ^ none of the holy Fathers or doctors taken separately
is the rule of faith, nor all yet together conjunctly, unless they
assert their common opinion to be of faith, and not merely pro-
pose their own iudgment.' Lastly, Natalis Alexander affirms,
that ' when all the Fathers Conspire in the same opinion, defend
it, and propose it as Apostolic doctrine, and an article of the
church to be believed by catholic faith, then doth their authoritv
aflbrd a necessary argument of sacred doctrine.' " ^* It sufficeth
not therefore," observes Placette, <^ either that many Fathers

jTOur owndoetriiie ftlto; except that in your eeee you ha^e, I believe, the unaiii*
mity of eilence. But ahoald yoiir doetrine have any exiatence, it cannot be with the

* imanimoiu conaent' of d^tors. Doctora in e?ery age f^m the third are op-
poeed to yon ; while in onr caae, firom the third century to the preaent day, we
can ahow yoo an nnintermpted deaoent^— the stream of oor doctrine flowing more
loll and ctoar in every ancceeding age.' I kn#w not how the Oxford Tract writera
would meet aoch obaenrationa aa theae ; bat I fear that the Anglican bdioTer, if
he yielda to the principle of thia tract, inatead of * expatiating in the rich paa*
tarea of catholidam,' wiH aoon find himaelf in * the anare of popery.' " Brit. Mag.
lor Feb. 1840. pp. 174—7.

1 In hia ** Incnrable Soepticiam of the Chnrch of Rome*" tranalated and pub*
Udied by ^rehhUk^p TVntton, 1688, 4to., and hoaerted by Bishop Oibaon in the
third f olame of hia rreaenrative against Popery.

M4 tJOMmnoAL TSAomoK

detiver an opioioii ai of faith, or that ail ibim|d rimplj teach it,
but not affirm it to be of faith, ^ow iftktse ttvo conditions ba
observed f how few articles of Christian faith shall we receive
from tradition ? For the Fathers seldom all agree and more
rarely admonish us that what they teach is of faith. So that

IF TOU TAKE AWAT ALL ARTICLES WHBREIff EITBfiR OF THKSB COEf-
DITIOlfS IS WANTING, IT MAY WELL BE DOUBTED WHETHER ANT ONE

WILL REMAIN • . • • From what hath been 'said, it appears

that matters of tradition and beli^ cannot be learned from

the Fathers. Hence i^^diusEstrix vehemently inveighs agaiDst

Peter van Buscum, a Divine of Gaunt, who in his ' Instruction'

had remitted young divines ^o the Fathers to learn the Christian

doctrine from th^m. And Nuetus the Jesuit likens those writers

of controversy, who, passing by the Scripture, betake themselves

to the Fathers, to thieves and rogues, who deserting the cities flee

into thick woods that they may more securely hide themselves."^

In fact,our opponents when brought to the pmnt are compelled

to admit the uncertainty of their boasted ''catholic consent."

" We, for our parts," says Mr. Newman, speaking on this subject,

'' have been taught to consider that faith in its d^ree as well as

conduct must be guided by probabilities, and that doubt is ever

our portion in this life ... we are but striking a balance

between difficulties existing on both sides."' And therefore they

have very little difficulty when '' striking the balance** to make

it pro or con in any particular case according to their own taste

and convenience. And the refuge which they have provided for

themselves against an objector is twofold, first that if this ** con-^

sent" be not admitted, notwithstanding its uncertainty, as a suffir

cient foundation for faith to rest upon, we shall be left without

any ground for believing the Scriptures to be the word of God, a

statement for which the sceptics of the day will no doubt feel

! greatly obliged to them ; and secondly (to make all right) that
aith means belief upon imperfect and uncertain evidence ; both
which propositions we shall consider in the next chapter, but we r
notice them here that the reader may know how far our oppo-
nents themselves have been driven towards the admission of the
doctrine for which we have been contending in this chapter.

So far, then, from shrinking from such a charge as that which
Placette brings against the church of Rome for patronizing such
doctrines, namely, that of " incurable scepticism," Mr. Newman
at once avows that such is his state of mind, and that he is so
fully conscious of the insufficiency of the grounds upon which his
feith rests, that he feels that ** doubt is ever his portion in this

1 Ineor. Scept. of Chorch o( Rome, c. 8.
' Lect. p. 139. See alfo pp. 69 and 8S9.

I

iro DiviiCK iNFosMAirr. 305

life.'* The reader will do well to coosider wbetbeir be is desirous
that such should be Ai^ oum portion, and if not, to take heed
how he embraces seutimeDts which, by the confession of their
authors, will lead him to it.

SECT. VII.— THS BIVAL APPBiLLS MADE TO PATBISTIOAL TBADITION IN
ANTIEKT TIMES ON SEVERAL. OP THE MOST IMPOETAMT POINTS,
OEOUNDED UPON TESTIMONIES, MANY OF WHIOM WB DO NOT NOW
POSSESS, MITCH BBDVCB THE VALUE 'OF ANT PABTIAL CONSENT WE
MAT FIND ON SUCH POINTS IN TRB WOBK8 THAT BBMAIN TO VS.

We must now proceed to observe that the claim made to ca-
tholic consent in favour of the orthodox faith is opposed by the
rival claims of antient heretics to a portion at least of patristical
tradition in their favour. And as they possessed the writings of
the Fathers to a far greater extent and in a far more correct
state than we now do, it is impossible for us precisely to deter<>
mine what grounds they may or may not have had for such an
appeal.

And in noticing this point, I must caution the reader aeainst
the misrepresentations that are so common on this subject. Many
^em to take it for granted that those who did not receive the
orthodox doctrine are to be set down as men who had not com-^
mon honesty, and uttered falsehoods without heritation ; which,
however true it mar be of some, is not to be assumed of all of
them. Moreover, the Romanbts, to answer their own purposes,
almost always represent the heretics as men who admitted that
their views were new and that they could plead no sanction for
them in antiquity, and who appealed only to Scripture; and our
opponents (somewhat strangely for men who profess so much
knowledge of antiquity) evidently proceed upon the same notion,
either from having fallen into the Rombh snare, or from having
been misled by their great master, the monk of Lerinsr who mis-
represents this matter as much as the Romanists. For he uni*
versally represents the heretics as appealing onby to Scriptorey
and bringing forward what they knew and confessed to be new
doctrines, repudiating any appeal to antiquit]^, and yet with an
inconsistency not uncommon in such writers, tells us with respect
' to some of those heretics, that they *' commonly lay hold of some
rather darkly expressed writings of one antient Father or other,
which by reason of the obscurity may seem as it were to m«ke
for their opinion, to the end they may be thought, whatsoever, I
know not what, they bring forth to the world, neither to have

cc

8M PATSItTfCiX TSABITtOlV

ieen theJIrBt that $o taught ^ neiiher alone ^ that cpintum^
(§ 7,) and accuaes them (not withoul reaiOD probably as it re-
spected maaj) of corrupting the writings of the Fathers, (§ 28,)
forgetting that if they repudiated any appeal to antiquity, tiiey
would not have given themselves the trouble to do this; and with
respect to Nestorius, he pens the following downright misstate"
ment; that he ** boasted that he toas the first and onh/ man
who understood the Scriptures, and that all others were in
ignorance, which before his days, in their office cf teachers^
had expounded the divine sayings, that is^ ail priests, all
confessors gnd martyrs^ of whom some had esqpounded God's
lawy others allowed and believed them so expounding : to
conchide, he nmintained that the wholechurch both now doth
err, and always had erred, because as he thought she had fol-
lowed and was fdlowii^ ignorant and erroneous doctors." (§ 32.)
Now it is notorious that Nestorius and his followers have always
maintained that their doctrine had been handed down from the
earliest times of the Christian church. It is painful to see such
statements made in defence of the truth. And it is not the only
one of this kind which Vincentius has made. A statement of the
same kind and even much nK>re incorrect Is made by him with
respect to Agrippinus on the question of the rebaptizatkxi of
heretics/ as we have already seeA.

On tills head, then, we remark, in the first place, that the ap-
peal of the early heretics was very frequently made not to Scrip*
ture, but to their own con-uptions of Scripture, or to Scripture
mutilated to serve their purposes.

< Thus Marcion mutilated the gospel of Luke, and removed from
St. Paul's Epistles all those things that were cpntrary to his views,
a;nd rejected some whole books.'

And Tertullian, speakii^ of thes^ corruptions of Scripture as
comnKM) nonong the heretics, says^ — ** They who purposed teach-
ing a diflerent doctrine were compelled by necessity to make
alterations in the documents that deliver the doctrine. For they
could not otherwise have taught a diflferent doctrine unless they
had different documents. to teach with. As their corruption of
doctrine could not have succeeded witl^out a corruption of the
documents that deliver the Christian faith, so our integrity of
doctrine would not have bek>nged to us huh for the integrity of
the docuRients by which the doctrine is expressed."^
So the author of *^ The Little Labyrinti]^" (sometimes attribu-

t Hm e. 9.

• Iran. Adt. hmr. lib. i. c S7. ed. Matt. e. 39. ed. Grab, aad fib. Hi. o. 19. Ter-
tuU. AdT. Mare, lib* iv. and ▼. Bpipban. in her. Mardonit.

s Teft9ll. !)• Pnwcr. e. 98. See the orif inal imder Ttrtulltui ia c. 19. below.

HO »iviini iinrtMUiAiiT*- WJ

ted to Oaks,) speaking of tbote tlmt folbwed tbeberesjrof Arte-
moD, (who denied the divinity of our Savioor,) lays, — '< They
have fearienly adnhereted the Scriptiare8»and have rejected the
canon of the antient faith, and have ignored Christ ; not inqm-
ring t^utt the Divine Scriptures say^ [showing what he thought
they ought to have done] but labouring dtl^ently to find out

what kind of s^fHogism might be discovered for the confirmation

' ■ - - npiety. . . . . Tl '

upon the divine Scriptures, saying that ttiey have amended

of their impiety, .... They have fearlessly laid their hands

them." And he goes on to say < that any one who will inspect
their copies will at once see the proof of this from the way in
which they differed one from another, and because they could
not point out the copies from which any one of theirs was taken ;
adding that some of them had gone so far as to reject the whole
of the Law and the Prophets.^

So Clement of Alexandria accuses the heretics of refusing to
admit some portions of ^Scripture which went against them, and
blamed them not because they reas6ned from Scripture, but
because they caught at words that might appear favourable in-
stead of looking to the general sense of the passage, and reason-
ed from a few isolated passages instead of taking a general and
connected view of what Scripture delivered on the subject ;* a
fault which, as Tertullian tells us, was common to all the here-
tics.'

Other instances may easily be found. I will add only one more,
viz., the case of the Manichees, who charged the Scriptures with
having been corrupted subsequently to the times of the Apostles,^
.and rejected all the passages that were opposed to their heresy.^
And they who look further into the matter, will find that in the
appeals of heretics to Scripture, there was generally some slip-
pery dealing with Scripture of this kind.

Nay J they toere many of them noted for deterring men from
the study of the Scriptures,

For Eutherius, after an emphatic exhortation to men to search
for the truth in the Scriptures, which we shall notice elsewhere,
lays it down, as one mark of heretics, that they are glad to keep
men from the Scriptures ;— " they who desire," he says, ** to be
judges in their own cause, drive men from the Scriptures, under
the pretext, indeed, of not daring to penetrate into their mysteries

1 Eaieb. Hist Eccles. lib. ▼. c 38. Ronth, Reliq. Sacr. vol, ii. pp. 10—13.

>Gleni. Alei. Strom, lib. vii. p. 891. ed. Potter.

s Hi* tribas capitulis totam inttmroeDtnin utritisque TeiUmenti volont cedere,
tttiii oportett Mcandum plura intelligi paudora ; aed proprium h»e ett omnium
hereticorum. Tertall. AdT. Prax. c. 30. p* 511. ed. 1664.

* See AugQflt. De oiil. ored. c. 3. torn. 8 col. 49.

^ See Augoat. Contr. Fauat. libr. i^L c. 3, torn. 8. eol. 318. and hsr. 46.

308 PATanrioAL nAomoir

as inaccemUe ; bot, in truth, in order to avoid their coadeoH
nation of their own fabe doctrine."*

And 80 TertuUian calls them ^ men that fly from the light of
the Scriptures."*

And Basil brings this as an especial charge against the JirianSj
that it was ** always their great care not to teach simple souls
from the divine Scriptures, but to circumvent the truth by hu-
man philosophy."*

But further; and this is what I am here more particularly con»
cerned to show ; they were in the habit of appealing to patriS'
tical tradition as in their favour.

Thus Ireneus tells us of the heretics of his time, ** when they
are reproved from the Scriptures they immediately begin to ac-
cuse the Scriptures themselves ; as if they were not correct,
nor of authority, and that they are not consistent ; and that
the truth cannot be found out from them^ by those who
are ignorant qf tradition:^^^ So far, then, from being oppoaed
to tradition, it seems that they were as er^t sticklers for it, as
our opponents; and accordingly we find Irenseus, in order to re-
fute them upon their own ground^ proceeding to show them that
tradition was aeainst them, as well as Scripture ; for which be
has been himself set down by the Romanists, and our opponents,
as one of the great champions, for the necessity of tradition ; with
what truth we shall see more fully hereafter.

And so, elsewhere, be telb us of the Marcosians' and Carpo-
cratians* in particular, that they pretended a tradition in favour
of their notions.

And Clement of Alexandria informs us that Valentinus, Mar-
oion, and Basilides, all professed to preach what was delivered
by Matthias ;^ and that the followers of Basilides boasted that
their master was a pupil of Glaucias, the amanumensis of Peter ;
and those of Valentinus, that their master was taught by Theo-
das, a friend of Paul.'

fjum, m matfot'nmr in A dOjAmd, m) tw ptuym m tf Mfrm f^jryx^ '"'^ w«ii*c muo/o-
iri«c. Euth«r. Serm. 2» Inter Thaodor. Op. ad. ScbulM, ton. ▼. pu 112S.
2 Lacifiigs iati Scripturaniiii. Tertutl. De retttrr. carnit, c. 47. p. 854.

^X^t tLKK^tm'm •fn^ «♦<*< irmpM^mfff^At rut AMrSMty. Btiil. Ep. 8. ad." Baned.
|oni. iii. p* a 1 .

4 Cum anim ax Scriptoria arguun'tur in aocuaationam convartuntar ipaarum
Scriptoraram. quasi non recta babaant, naqoa aint az authoritata, at quia varie
•int dictB ; at quia non poaait ex hia invaoiri varitaa ab hia qui naaciant traditio-
nam. Adv. bar. iii. t.

5 Lib. i. c. SO. ad. Maaa. c. 17. ed Grab.
• Lib.i. c. S5. ad. Maaa. c S4, ad Grab.

7 Tw lAvt%tmt tuux^m wftt^^ywBM ik^mt. Clam. Al. Strom, lib. f iL p. 900. (ad.
Pottar.)

xo DfvnvB ucroBicAifT. sot

And Ptolemyi the ValentiniaD, exprettlT aaierts that ther doc*
trine was derived from Apostolical tradition, banded down to
them by a ^uccessional delivery from the Apostles.^

And so usual was it for heretics to prefer this claim» that Je-
ron)e says of them, generally, that they were accustomed to say,
^— " We are the sons of those wise men who, from the beginning,
have delivered to us the doctrine of the Apostles ;''* and he con-
trasts them with those who derive their knowledge from Scrip-
ture.' .J

\\. is quite true, that the tradition pleaded by these heretics,
was of a different kind to that claimed by Irenaeus, Tertullian,
and Origen, for that which they delivered as the substance of the
faith taught by the Apostles; because the former was a tradition
handed down by certain private individuals only ; whereas the
latter was affirmed to be the tradition of all the Apostolical
churches ; but, nevertheless, it is evidence to an opponent, as (ar
as it goes, against the universality of the. orthodox doctrine ; and
evidence which it is not fair altogether to keep out of sight, and
say that the hereticsi. did not dare to appeal to tradition, for that
it was altogether against them, and rested upon interm^etationa
of Scripture, which they acknowledged to be new. The cause
of truth gains nothing by such statements.

And these claims must be judged by us, in a measure^ upon
their own merits ; because, though the testimony of a few con«
temporary authors, whose writings we possess, affi>rd8 very strong
evidence against them» this evidence is not conclusive. What
we want is divine testimony ; and when professing Christians
are divided among themselves as to what is the truth, it is useless
to attempt to affix the title of a divine informant to the testimony
of any one portion of them, however large it jnay be.

But still further ; the appeals of the heretics to patristical^tra-
dition, were not all of this kind, but often of a more general
nature ; and especially in those questions which arose at a later
period of the church, and with which alone almost we are con->
cerned at the present day, I mean those connected with the
Arian, Nestorian, Pelagian, and sttch like controversies

From a fragment of a writer on the orthodox side, who wrote

ITtT^ tfi/AMftA' OK oLurm ^1 x«i OiMtxirnvof BtoSof^ auuutmmt Cleg.Bit^ ^mmiMttMU, Pot-
ter et al.) f^w^tr ymftfjuK ^ ourot iyryom UavXiou, Lib* TiL p. 898.

i MttBtm yupi &$av Mtmot, t^nt luu rw rwrw it^xjn it imu ymm€'m» ^(mufiiMm vnt
Kirw^eKumt iroLftUovimc^ w t» iuJoyiif xtu ifxmc irdLftoof^Afm^ /uuta juu too mumiff'M
irA'fTAQ Totrc hjoywi TV Tot; iMn^ d'ltitaiuajtL, PtoU Ep. ad Floram, ap. Epiph.
Adv. her. b. 33. § 7. p. 222. ed. 1622.

> PiHi gumas sapientiam qui ab imtio doctrinam nob^a apoitoliaam tradUa-
riint. Hieran. Comm. in If. c. 19. torn. 4. c 298. ad. VaU. torn. 3. e. 184. ad.
Ben.

Mb.

S 10 patbhtical tsadrioiv

as earlj ai the commenceineiit of the third centory, (the frag-
ment IB preserved to us by Eusebius,) we find that the followers
of Artemon, who denied the divinity of our Saviour, clainied ** all
the antients and the Jlpostlea themselves as in favour of their
views ;" and maintained that their doctrine, which they caH ^ the
truth of the Grospel,'* was ** preserved until the times of Victor."*
We have already quoted the passage more at length above, and
have seen how the claim was met by their orthodox opponent :
and in dealing with the opponents of the orthodox doctrine, should
remember with him that our evidence on the contrary side, is
only evidence of the same nature ; that is, resting upoD the lesti*
mony of a few individuals ; and not be hasty m stopping the
mouths of our adversaries with a claim to a divine informant. I
believe that the claim of these heretics was an impudent asser-
tion, diametrically opposed to the facts of the case ; but one great
reason why I believe it to be so, js from the fact that Scripture
clearly maintains the opposite doctrine.

The similar claims of succeeding heretics were of a still mere
jdausible kind, being connected with questions which had not
previously been the subjects of public discussion ; and on whichr
therefore, the earlier Fathers had not in general spoken clearly
and determinately.

Thus Alius and his party confidently appealed to patristical
tradition as in their favour.

In the Letter to Alexander, written by Arius and his earKest
followers, they call his doctrine ^< the faith which we have re»
ceived from our ancestors.'" And in a fragment preserved by
Athanasius, Arius uses the following language ; — <* According tc^
the faith of the elect of God, those to whom God hath jgtstxi^ in-
telligence, holy children^ orthodox, and who have received the
Holy Spirit of God, I have learned these things firom those wha
are partakers of wisdom, polished, taught of God, and in all
things wise. Being of the same mind with them, I have closely
followed their footsteps," &c.*

Two of these are mentioned by their orthodox opponents, ii»
order to exculpate them from the charge of supporting Arianism;
viz., Origen* and Dionysius of Alexandria.* The defence of the
latter by Athanasius,* is unanswerable; but this very case shows-

1 Eoseb. H. E. t. S8. Routfa, ReUq. 8aer. toI. S. pp. 7, 8. See p. 189 above,
i *H «vmr ^loir • tt ^rftymm. Epiphao. Adr. h»r. h. 86. § 7. torn. 1. p. 782..

«d. isn.

* KtfT* irtem tMkuurm Slot;, avHrm Steu, tr^iim Aytm* «f6oTOfa»y, ^ym Qmu mtufAm,

#0#w» tw iwvm *wt* i^fot tfS99 rym Ammn ifMf^my ». «*• x. Athanaf. oral. la. con-
iim Arian. § 6. torn. i. pp. 408, 9. ed. Bened.

« Socrat Hist. Eccl. it. 81.

' Atbanas. De SeoL Dionya. Op. torn. i. pp. 848, dU.

Mb

NO DIVIIfB INFOSHANT. 911

that it is impossible to expect to obtain the catholic consent of
the Fathers, upon a point not under diteussion in their time ; for
Athanasius himself allows^ that the passage cited by the Ariant
ivouldy if it bad stood alone, have decided the appeal in their
favour. It was^ a passage written in the heat of controversy
against an opposite error to that of Arius ; but it so happened
that Dion3rsiu8 was called upon to explain his views more folly on
the point, on account of the misapprehensions his statements had
caused ; and he satisfactorily. showed that he held no such views
as those of Arius. But how many would there be who, having
expressed themselves thus unwarily, might never have been
called upon to give any further explanation, and whose state-
ments, therefore, would seem to favour the views of Ariiis?
Nay, we have found that this is, in fact, the case, even*
with some authors whose writings remain to us. What be-
comes, then, of catholic consent, in such a case 7 We may
say, indeed, that such statements are to be accounted for sa
those of Dionysius ; and this may be very true ; but those who
are inclined to the opposite cloctrine are, of course, justified in
interpreting the expressions they find, as they stand ; and it is
only trifling with thenfi and ourselves, to demand that they be in-
terpreted according to our views, and then boast of catholic con-
sent. It is one thing to be able to account for the statements of
many of the early Catholic Fathers, when they seem to deviate
from strict orthodoxy, and show that they may be reconciled
with the assertion of their having held tne true doctrine by a
consideration of the circumstances of the case, and therefore that
it is probable that their meaning was orthodox ; and another to
maintain that that, and no other doctrine, is clearly and consist-^
ently maintained in their writings, and challenge their consent in
its favour. We shall find, indeed, practically that we are con-
tinually called upon in the writings of the Fathers, to make al-
lowances for the heat of opposition to the controversy they were
engaged in at the moment, which often led them into expressions
verging upon, or even decidedly favourable to, opposite errors.
And this is a fault which entirely prevents the Fathers from
bearing any such consentient testimony as our opponents dream
of, and peculiarly disqualifies them from performing the olOSce of
a judge of controversies. And for the same reason, the Scrip-
ture is peculisirly qualified to be so; because, though it may not
have entered into the particulars of the point in controversy ^ it
has stated the truth, simply and plainly, and without ever having,
when Condemning one error, versed to the opposite ; or, when
statiag a truth, overstated i(. 1 he elements which it gives us

> Ik p. 246, tad MS BmiI. Ep. ad Mtz. Ep. 9. Ed. Ben. ton. 8. p. 90.

for determiniDg the point in question, are all ^uch as, when pro-
perly used, Ic^d to the trutti. There are no BlatementB cakcula-
ted to lead ua astray, do represeotatioQB for nbich allowances
are to be made, either for the words used, or for a posaibie bias
of ofind or ardour of spirit that affected the toae of the iostriic-
tioD given.

Many other testimoDiea might be brought of the claim made

by the Arians and Semi-Ariaos to patristical tradition. Auxen-

tius. Bishop of Milan, in his I^etter to Valentiuian and Valens,

says, — " My creed is that in which 1 have been taught frommy

eceived from the holy Scriptures," proceed-

tient creed,' and be calls the faith which he

i allows that which was agreed upon at Ari-

: faith, and declares that the catholic bishops

led and anathematized the opposite doctrine,

ly.* And so £unomiuB boasted—" We ad-

which were demonstrated both by the saints

ler MS3. the holy Fathers] of old and now

nsat the Synod of Aatioch in 341 sny, "We
:h than that which was published from the
their Syitod at Sardica in 347, they use such
iwing; "It is our constant prayer, beloved
he faoly and catholic church of the Lord, free
and schisms, may everywhere preserve the

md tlie bond of love by a right faith

Church's rule, and the holy tradition and
fathers may remain for ever iirm and un-
moved,"* &c. And again, " Since therefore we cannot depart
from the tradition of our fathers' .... neither do we our-
selves receive (he aforementioned [i. e. Athanasius and Marct-1-
lus] to the honour and dignity of the Church, and we justly con-
demn those who do."' And so they speak of themselves after-
wards as " adhering to the laws of God and the traditions of
their fathers."*

I Bi infiDii* qMnsdmodoiD dovlM lam lient iCMpI d« noetii Seriptarti
cradiJi. Bilai. Cootr. Anuol. % 14. Op. eoL 1S70. wl. Bsnwl,
tlb.S lfi.eol. 13TS.

* 'H/iw TW Ti uwt tm ayOK [(I. ajMr itwTi,m] uu irii>.aj mu tm it' ium a^ntuim-
liMK ififMimK. EsHOK. Id BiiiL. A<)>. EuDom. lib. ii. 4 18. lom. i. p. ia».

«»" ™ * 'VX't «"**« tt^tfiA*. SocB. H, B. it. 7.
lOUqua ptniDlum tnditio itquc jadirik in perpctuum
It.

■ parentDin tradidnna diiecdna nc
mk ISOS and I8III. ad Beoed.
moiM. lb.

KO MTIHB UfFOBXART* 313

And at their Synod at Ancyra in 5SS, they speak .in the s^me
strain still more strongly, ** We eotreat you, venerable Lords and
iellow-worahippers," they say m their synodical epistle, *' that
having read these letters, ye will embrace firmly the faith de*
Jiveredto uifrom our fathers^ and that you will signify that our
faith is agreeable to yours; that those who dare to introduce
4his impiety, being fully assured that we preserve the faith which
we have received from the Apostolical times through the Fa-,
iktrs that have intervened down to our times^ as our patri-
mony, may either through shame be turned to the truth, or per*
^ing may be cut off from the church.'"

Similar language is usual at the other Arian Councils.'

The same claims we find to be made by the Aetians and Mace-
•donians, who accused the orthodox of introducing novelties into
the Christian faith ;< an accusation met by Gregory Nyssen by an
appeal to Scripture as the judge.*

And when at the Council of Constantinople, at its session id
•383, it was proposed by the Emperor, at the suggestion of one of
the orthodox party, that the matters in dispute between them
and the heretics present, viz. the Arians, Eunomians and Mace-
donians, should be determined by an appeal to the writings of
the Fathers, these heretics asserted their reverence for the Fa-
thers as their **masters^^* and many of them were desirous that
the points in dispute should be so determined, thoujrh others ob-
jected to such a course. The account given by Socrates is as
follows. The Emperor asks the heretics, *< if they respect and
receive the writings of the doctors that lived before the division
of the church ; and they having not denied that they did, but
on the contrary affirming that they altogether honoured them
as masters^* the king again inquired whether they would follow
them as trustworthy, witnesses of the Christian faith. The lead-
ers of the sectaries and the logicians among them, for there were
many among them well fitted for disputation, doubted what to
do. For there was a division anK>ng them, some saying that
the king^s proposal was a good one^ and others that it was not

1 U*fMUikovf4» vfjM€ Ku^n rtfiundtrot wxxwwiryu m*tvx***f^ ot' *^*9^mi *n vt WMfn-
wxMf^^lofit^mTWC ei imr «u;<nry A9%%um» tKru€u,yw fXfxmrrtf* w tuiBa^p uxufof tna. mir at

Epiphan. adv. Hsr. b. 78. % 2. torn. i. p. 647.

2 Sea Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. cc. 19, SO and 87.

tarwoLKmi^tv. Basil. d« 8p. 8. c 6. § 13. torn. iii. p. 10. And Gemob. Ntss.
De Trin. prope inii. torn. ii. pp. 439, 440. ed. 1616.

4 Gng, Njas* ut tupra. We aball notioe ilie passage more particularly bere^
afm. See o. 10.

i Tlwiu Tifji^f mntvf m tutBHymac

VOL. U DD

814 PATsisTicAii T» ADmoiir

suitable (o their object. For they were differently affected to*
wards the books of the antients ;^ and they do longer agreed
one with the other, and they were divided, not only eome 8ect»
towards others, but those of the 8an>e heresy among themselres;''
and he proceeds to say that in consequence of thi9 diversity of
opinion the Emperor ordered each party to present their creed
to him.' The appeal to the Fathers, therefore, though declined
by 8onr>e, was by others willingly accepted.

And we are told by the learned Henry Wharton, that " Euno^
mius, the heretic, in fats Apology, extant in MS. in St. Martini
Library, every where pleaaeth the tradition of precedent ages ^
and professeth to follow that as his only rule of faith. ' it is ne-
cessary/ saith he,' for those who treat of matters of faith, setting
before them the holy tradition which hath all along obtained
from the times of the Fathers, as a rule and canon, to make use
of this accurate rule to judge of those things which shall be
said." Afterwards proposing his blasphemous opinion about
the Holy Ghost, he introduceth it with this Preface,* * Exactly
following the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and receiving it
from them, we believe,' " &c. " This, then," be adds, " was the
arti6ce and practice of the ancient heretics. What the prac-
tice of the Catholic Fathers was in opposing these heretics, or
establishing any necessary article of faith; that they accounted
Scripture to he the only adequate rule of fait h, and to contain
in express and plain words all things necessary to be believed ;
that they rejected all articles which could not be thence deduced
as spurious and false, or at least undertain and unnecessary ; and
always asserted the sufficiency of Scripiure^ I will not here in-
sist to prove ; since that point hath been so qften handled and
cleared by the writers of our chureh.*^^

The same was the case with Nestorius and his favourers among
the oriental bishops, who clainrVed patristical tradition as in their
favour.

Nestorius appealed to the Nicene Fathers, as ** those holy Fa-
thers who are beyond all praise,"' aiid maintains that their con-
fessions is in favour of bis views ;^ and when John, bishop of An-

1 Axxei Axxvr tr^of ^tyi t« 'Mhut tm wdLKtum,

s 8ocr. Hint. Eccl. ▼. IQ. ed. Retd. torn. ii. p. 873.

3 Ar«i>xxiov /' i0'«K Too< fnwi Toi/rdnr Xoyouc 9roMV/unovc . . . «rity nfwrwcaai ttn^n t»

ffvyx'^'P*'* XP'^** M^ntmwptt nnf rm xrycfjumf vrutM-n. Apologetic, in fine Prologi.

4 T»v ten Ayim •» a-ta^i ppxt/rromc MtaiuaMtt, irof* m KoAtftH . . . 7noriw*nvMMfA%f
Pott med.

s See Preface to <* A Treatife proving Scripture to be the mle of faith, bj R.
Peacock, &c" 1688. 4to. pip. Wii, &z.

• Sancti i|ti et^apra onnen predicationem patrea. Concil. Ephea. p. I. c. 16.
Condi, ed. Par. 1671. tooa. iii. ooL 850.

1 lb. c. 17. ib. coL UX,

tiocb, wrote to bim oti the subjectf to induce him, for the sake
of peace^ to apply t.he title, mother of God ($mT^$i)^ to the Vir-
giD Mary, as beiog one to which hia people were accustomed,
and which might be understood in a good sense, he admits that
he had heard from nrmny and common friends that his sentiments
were the same with those of the fathers and doctors of the church^^
And the oriental bishops, who favoured bis views at the
Council of Ephesus, distinctly claim to he considered the defen-
ders of the antient faith of the church. '* We are called," they
say, in their Petition to the Emperor, " to confirm the faith of
the holy Fathers,"* And again, " Let not your majesty despise
the faith which is corrupted, into which both you and your pro-^
genitors were baptized ; upon which also the foundations of the'
church are based, for which the most holy martyrs underwent
with joy innumerable kinds of death ; by the aid of which also
you have overcome the barbarians . . , . For it will be de-
stroyed if the doptrine which Cyril has irUrodttced into the faith,
and other heretics have confirmed, should prevail.'

And again, in their letter to Rufus, bishop of Thessalonica,
having regretted his absence, they add, " For your holiness, had
you been present, would have appeased the tumults that hap*
pened, and the disorders perpetrated, and would have contended
with us against the Aere^>^ introduced into the orthodox faith^
and that evangelical and apostolical doctrine which the children
ever receiving from their fathers have conveyed down unal*
tared evei^ to our tim^s.***

It would be eapy to add other proofs.

Nor must we forget that the Nestorians to this day *< main-
tain that the doctrine he [i. e. Nestorius] taught was much older
than himself, and had been handed down from the earliest
times qf the Christian churchJ*^^

Pass we next to the Eutychians, who were condemned at the
Council of Chalcedon, and we shall find that they, jn like man-

i

1 Ei yAf i ^tdUfUL aw nrev ttvnrou <roK fnurpajrt xai ru( iKKXMo^tK i'd'ttaiuLkctt p^nfAAta
t^gTAty (t«vto y*^ ^UL mKKm tuu «oiM»r ^X4»r fn^t o'ou^ itrrvrA, fXi/jmAmutfAm) ti xtrtru to
K/f«^ ppcn/jiA xofTdLKkMiJ^ ofofAO^t i'ufJtoff-uo^oL CoDC Epb. p. 1. c. 35. ib. col. 889.

2 Vooati tamaa ad oonfinnandim sanctoratn patram fidem. Tenia peu orient,
•piac. ad Imperat. inter Act. Concil. Eph. ib. coi. 730.

a Ne d«apioiat Teatra Majeataa fidem qa» adulterator, in qnam et vou baptizati
eatia et Teatri progenitorea ; in quam et eccleain fondamenta eont jaeta, propter
qaam aanctiaaimi martyrea innumera mortia genera cum voluptate sueceperunt,

cam qoa et barbaroa viciatia dismmpetur eoim si opinio quam Cyrillua

fidei induzit et alii haretici confiunaront invaleacat. Ib. col. 731.

4 Bsratu9t yttf Af TTctt^AyodfAm [i on Ayu$9Vfu] tuu <r«( yrytfUfjiWdLc (rvyx**^^"* '''** '^^'^
*nro\fMfAfraf a/TO^tctty kou vxn i/uitf ttu tutfrnymtoet/n n-eit fTru^'Ap^dMff-flt^ aipwuf *tm cf9(/of4»

/Atxf^ ifAMf Tflu/Twr veuvrtfji^Af. Ep. Orient Ep. ad Ruforo. Ib. eol. 736, 7,
» Moaheim. EecU Hist. Cent. ▼. p. 8. c. 5. ^ 13. Engt ed. 183S. toI. ii. p. 67.

819 FATftiniCAL TBADmOX

ner, urged the same claim ; maintainiiig that the orthoddx Fa-
then were oo their side.

At the Synod of Constantinople in 448, Eutjches himself sajs,

<< I follow the Fathers" ^* I have read the blessed

Cyrily and the other Fathers, and the holy Athanasius, that thej
said that be was of two natures before the union ; but after the
union and incarnation, thej no longer spoke of two natures, but
one.'^*

And in his Letter to Pope Leo, after his condemnation at the
S^ynody he strongly urges the testimony of the Fathers in his fa-
vour.

So, also, in his Petition to the Synod (or rather. Council) of
Ephesus, in 449, he sayS, — '* I hold all the holy Fathers equally
with your holinesses as orthodox and faithful, and have taken
them as my masters; anathematizing Manes, Valentinus, Apoii-
narius, and Nestorius, and all the heretics up to Simon Magus."*

And at this Synod, where the confession of Eutyches was re*
ceived as orthodox, Dioscorus, the president, who favoured Eu-
tyches, admonished the bishops present, at the commencement of
the proceedings, that they were to consider whether the views
advanced by the Eutycbians, were agreeable to what had been
ordained by the holy Fathers^ '

And when the monks who sided with Eutyches were asked by
Dioscorus, " respecting the presence of the Saviour in the fleshi
Are your views the same as those of the blessed Athanasius, and
the blessed Cyril, and the l)lessed Gregory, and all the orthodox
bishops ?*** their leader, Eleusinud, replied, *' We are all of the
same mind with both the holy Fathers that met at Nicaea, and
those who were assembled here [i. e. at Ephesus, at the Third
General Council]."*

And in the Council of Chalcedon, Carosus, and the other Eu-
tychian leaders, declare individually; — ^«*My faith is that of the
three hundred and eighteen bishops that were at Nicsea, in which
I was baptized. I know no other."'

fan Km rw aytcv KHdaajnWy ott u /ve fcir puvmt ufr9f iifo <r»c nmff-mt, fivt*. 1% *rkf iwrjr
jcfu TUf o-apxmo'n wxi^t ^ punic ujnt ax\A fjtHu. Ooncil. ConiUnt. Act. 7. Inter
Act. CoDC. Chalc ; Concil. torn. !▼. col. 288.

t n^rtttt rwt ^tytw€ irmntfd/ti o»c »«i » u/uitnfm 6iM«tfiMt, opdo/^^c u^fif ttm mwtwii *m
MtiT*<v^M( tfA3Ltnm tBtfjiWy ^oBijuuvri^tn Maunir, B«tx»Tirov> A^«xirci^v. luu NtrTOfi»y>
juc/ ^AvroLc Towe tttpnixovt U»c Itfxttm *tw a«c>0V' lb. col. 136.

ft X#» Tom/y MUM T«i «tr Jt^btiTtt irpvn»vi (tmiBwiUy mm MfMc ^otUfA^o-^t n ntmht ruyx"^
v9'j ct TOK iftcBuTt mt^ *rmf Aytm irA^nfm. lb col. U8. ^ ^

uatxaiMc< Kt/wxxoc JMu 0 uAutpw TfitryoMt tuu vdtrrK ol ofBo^M nrto-w^ot. lb. ool. 279,
«8«. ^ .

A ^«^nc wrm ppofwuvfy tt; km oLw Nokaja 0vrtx0emc xmt m nttoAa, evHtxty/siinoi tfym
wan^p4C. lb. col. 282.'

6«r) oi^«* vnt rym tUJJif frto^n wk m^. Codc. Chalced. Act. 4. lb. col. 580.

MO Dfynii iifFomMAirr. 317

To these we might add the case of the Pelagians, who notori-
ouslj claimed the support of primitive Fathers.^

Naj» Lactantius tells us that all heretics reckoned themselves
to be the best Christians, and their own church to be the^ eatho^
lie church,*

And Salvian, speaking of heretics, says, " They are here- \
tics with us, not in their own estimation. For they so complete-
ly reckon themselves to be catholics, that they decry us as he-
retics. What, therefore, they are with us, thlit we are with
them."*

It is quite clear, then, that all these heretics considered that
patristical tradition was in their favour. And therefore I doubt
whether it was wise in Dr. Waterland (to whose learned and
valuable bibours in proof of the great preponderance of the evi-
dence in favour of the orthodox faith, we are deeply indebted,)
to bring forward the charges of novelty made by some of the or-
thodox against the Arians, and while he is altogether silent as to
the similar charges made on the other side, quote these as an
undeniable proof that Arianism was a complete novelty* — es-
pecially when he must have been fully aware that even a worse
heresy, on the same point, had long before found its defenders
among Christiana.^

These charges, being reciprocal, prove nothing on either side.
And when we come to investigate the acti!kar evidence produci*
ble from the writings that remain to us, we find the true state of

1 See Whitak. De pecc orig. lib. iL c 2.

' SinguU qaiqae ccBtut bsreticoriim ae potiMimum GhristiaDOs et suam este
Oetbolicani ecclesiam potent. Dit. Inat. lib. iv. c. ult.

9 Apod nee aant bflsretici, apod ae non aunt Nam in tantam ae oetbolicoa
eaae jiidicant, at noa ipaoa titalo haretics appeilationis infament. Quod ergo ilU
Dobia aunt, boc noa illia. Saltiav. De Gab. Dei. lib. v. prope iniu ed. 1669.
p. 100.

4 See tba Preface to hia Second Defence.

* In the aame place be bas auffered biroeelf to fall into a miaetatement reapect-
ing the conduct of the heretica at Conitantinople, With regard to the writinga of
the Fatbera. Having given a long extract from Socrates, showing the nature of
the propoaat made, be atops precisely at the point where the reception given to
the proposal is narrated, and contenta bimaelf with giving the following account
of it. *< Whereupon the heads of the different aecte were at first maoh confowid*
ed and divided among themaelvea, aome commending what the Emperor had pro-
posed, and othera not ; ^t in conctunon, they all choae rather to reat the caose
aolely on logical disputation, than npon the testimoniea of the ancienta." (pp.
18, 14.) And in hia chapter ** on the ose and value of ecclesiastical antiqoity,"
in hia ^ Inpoftanee of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity," he alludes to it again
aa a proof that the heretica, when practically brought to the teat, declined the
appeal to patristical tradition. (Worka, vol. 5. pp. 324, 5.) Tbia is clearly a mia-
representation of the matter; becauae the heretics in question asserted thst they
** highly honoured the Fathers aa their masters ;^* and when put to the teat, a
prtion of them (large or email, we know not) were still willing and desirous to
be jadged by the tradition of th« Fathers. Soch aUtemanta are to be regratled.
In the end they prejudice the caoae of troth.

DD*

318 PATSXSTICAL TEADITIOK

the case to be, that the Fathers often vtrrote botlj and bastifj^
Und consequently iticorrecthr : and therefore may be quoted in
almost all the great questions of doctrine that have agitated the
church since the very earliest period, on both sides. Phis is the
case even with those writings that have been preserved to- us;
and these, it must be recollected, form but a few of those that
were published, especially of the earlier ages.

And hence it was that so many heresies (as an antient writer
tells us) broughC forward passages of the Fathers in their de-
fence; and that Eusebius, in his defence of Origen, was able to
give very many testimonies of preceding Fathers in favour of
some of his errors^. ^

Let me not, however, be misunderstood in the above remarks*
I am very far from meaning to convey the idea by them, that
the heretics had such support in the writings of the primitive'
Fathers as they of^en boasted of. My conviction is tnat they
had not. And I maintain that an accurate examination of the
writings of the pricnitive Fathers will prove to any impartial in-
quirer, that the weight of patristical testimony is beyond com*
parison in favour of the orthodox faith. But my object is to show
to those who are claiming antiquity, as if it were obviously and
exclusively in their favour, and putting forth pretensions tosucb>
a catholic consent as can never be proved, and, in fact, never ex-
isted ; and asserting that the heretics could find nothing favour*
able to their views in the writings of the preceding Fathers, and
even (as some do) declaring that they rejected all appeals to an-
tiqliity ; and resting the claims of the orthodox faith to our belief
upon such a foundation, to beware how they take such ground,
and especially how they make that supposed cotisent the sole
authorised interpreter of Scripture, and tell us that Scriptures
cannot be understood without it. The preceding extracts (and
many more to the same purpose, might easily be added) abun-
dantly show that the Arians, Mestorians, and others, claimed
patristical tradition in their favour^ as much as their opponents;
and enveighed against the novelties and heresies of their oppo-
nents, and their opposition to the sentiments of the "catholic
church," as strongly as the orthodox.

Wilt it be said that they all made this claim vrithout any
foundation for it 7 It may, by men wedded to a hypothesis, or
by hot and injudicious controversialists. But I suspect that men
of cooler judgment, when they come to view the whole case, will
take different ground ; and content themselves with maintaining
that, taking the writings of the early Fathers as a whole, there is
very strong testimony to be found in them in favour of the ortho-

I Aactor Synod. Adv. Trag. Iren. c. 198, in Ronth. Rdiq. IS. toI. iij. p. 267.

NO Drran ixfouakt* 819

dox faith, and that passages which appear fiivtHmible to views
which did not come into dlscuasioD till a period subsequent to the
date of those passages cannot always be taken as prooft that the
writer supported those views, because, not having those views in
his mindt he might easily have expressed himself incautiously,
especially if he was writing in opposition to a contrary prevail*
ing error. So far we are on safe and immovable ground. And
such, as it appears to me, is all the aid we could naturally and
reasonablv expect from the writings of the Fathers. But beyond
this our claims are mere assertions ; assertions which if true could
not be proved, and which are in reality contrary to the plain fi^ts
of the case.

«1CT. vniv— WHAT THB TEACTATOES CALL ** CATHOLIC COBSKNt'* IS
HOT TBBATXD BT THBlfSBLVES III MANY CASBS AS AFFOSDIHO AKT
SUFFICiailT FBOOF OF THE DOCTEimBS SO SUPPOSTED.

To illustrate this subject still further, I will now proceed to
point put some cases where there appears to be what our oppo-
nents would call '' catholic coasen^t ;^ and which may lead then
and others to reflect how far their system i& characterized by
consistency.

(1.) The doctrine taught by the Fathers of the first three cen-
turies as to the Divine appearances to man under the Old Testa-
ment dispensation.

These Fathers seem universally to ascribe all these appearan-
ces to the Son. And as the principal passages have been careful-
ly collected by Dr. Burton, I shall present the reader with his
statement of them, which probably may have more weight with
my opponents than any catena of my own.

'* It was Christ who talked with Adam, Gen.iii. 8, 9, where the
person is said to be the Lord God. v. Theophil. in Autol. ii. 22.
Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 16. p. 509. Irenaeus iv. 10. p. 239.

" It was Christ who spoke to Noah, Gen. vL Id. Irenaeus iv.
10.

'* It was Christ who went down to confound the tongues at
Babel, Gen. xi. 5, where it is said that it was the Lord. Justin
M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 127. p. 220. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 16.
p. 509. Novatian. c. 25. p. 723.

*' It was Christ who appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I
am the Almighty God, Gen. xvii. 1. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph.
c. 127. p. 220. Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. p. 131.

'*It was Christ who appeared to Abraham in the plains of
Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1, where he i§ called ike Lord and the judge

4tf ail ike UHh, yet. 96. Jmlio. M. Dkd. gsimi Tryph. c* 56,
p. 163. Clem. Alex. P«cL i. 7. p. 131. TertulL Adv. Marc. iii.
i. p. 402. Origen. in Gen. Horn. av. 8.

<< It was Cbrist who rained Are upon Sodon, Gen. xiz» 34. The
Fathers particularly mention the expression, 'then the Lord
rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire /rovn
the Lord.^ Juntin. M. Dhiil. cum Tryph. c. 56. p. 152: c. 137*
p. 321. Irensus, iii. 6. p. 180. Tertull. Adv. Prax. 13» 16, p.
507, 509.

" It was Christ who tempted Abraham, Gen. xxii. Origen. in
Gen. Horn. viii. 8. Cyp. Test ii. 5. p. 386.

^' It was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen. xxviiL 19, where
the person calls himself ' the Lord Ood of •Abraham and the
Ood of haac.^ Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 15G»
Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. p. 131.

''It was Chrbt who spoke to Jacob in a dream, Gen* xxxi. 11,
18, where be calls himself the Ood of Bethel^ (see Gen. xxviii,
18, 19.) Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155. Cyp. Test,
ii. 5. Novatian. c. 27. p. 735.

" It was Christ who wrestled with Jacob, Gen. xxxii. 34, where
it is expressly said that he was God, ver. 38, 80. Justin. M. Dial,
cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155, 156. c. 125. p. 318. Irenaeus p. 389.
Clem. Alex* Ped. i. 7. p. 183. Concil. Antioch. (Reliq. »acr. ii.
p. 470.)

'^It WAS Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 1, 9.
Justin M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155. where he says, ' he is
called God, and is God, and will be.' Cyp. Test. ii. 6.

** It was Christ who appeared to Moses in the Bush, Exod. iii.
3, where the person calls himself * the Ood of Mraham^ the
God of Isaac, and the Ood of Jacob /' and at Ver. 14, • I am
that I am.' Justin. M. Apol. i. 63. p. 80. Dial, cum Tryph.
c. 00, p. 157. Irenaeus iv. 10, 13. Clem. Alex. Cohort, ad Gent
p. 7. Tertull. Adv. Jud. c. 9. p. )94.

" It was Christ who said to Moses, (Exod. xx. 2,) "I am the
Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt.'
Clem. Alex. P»d. i. 7. p. 131.

" It was Christ who spoke to Moses, Levit. vi. 1, and conse-
quently who delivered the whole of the Law. Origen. in Levit
Hom. iv. init.

" It was Christ who appeared to Joshua near Jericho, Josh. v.
13. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 63. p. 159 — 60.

'* These instances might be multiplied so as to make a volume ;
but enough perhaps has been said to show that all the Fathers
agreed in entertaining the same opinionJ*^^

1 TMtim. of Ante-Nicene Fathers to Jmnitjr ef Christ. Snd. edit Ox. 18S9.
pp. 38—40.

V9 DmoB nriHMXAVtw StI

But notwithstanding this ** catholic coD8«at^'*' Dr. B«f ton adds,
'* / again repeat that 1 am not concerned to inquire into
the soundness qf this opinion^^^ which shows that he at least
did not consider such a consent as a sufficient proof of the truth
of a doctrine, or interpretation of Scripture, at any rate, on such
a point. He remarks, however^ very justly, that " the Fathers
who held it could not have believed that Christ was a viere manf
nor ever an angel ; they assert over and over again that the
persop who appeared to the patriarchs could not be an angel, be-
cause he is called God and Jehovah ; and they as expressly as-
sert that he who revealed himself as God and Jehovah was not
the Father^ but the Son." '* I may add,*^ he observes, '* that
the •Brians openly professed their belief that it was Christ ' to
whom the Father said, Let us make man^ &c« who was seen 4y
the patriarchs face to face, who gave the law and spake by the
prophets, &cJ (Athaoas. De Synodis, vol* i. p. 740. see also p* 743.)
Eusebius, who has been suspected of Ari^nism^ devotes the fifth
book of his Demonstratio Evangelica to establishing Ibis point.
See also this same work, i. 5. p. II."

The fact is, the Arians stoutly contended for this opinion as
strengthening their cause, and showing that though ^he Son was
God, there was yet some difference between the nature of the
Son and the Father, and the earliest supporters of the opinion
that some of these appearances might be attributed to the Fa«
ther are, I think, to be found among the opponents of the
Arians.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, however, very peremptorily con-
tended for the former opinion as the only one which could be
tolerated.

Thus Justin Martyr, speaking of the appearance to Mosea at
the bush, says, *' No one who has the least understanding will
dare to say that the Maker and Father of the universe^ having
left all things that are above the heaven^ appeared in^ a little
portion of the earth."*

And elsewhere, that he who appeared to Abraham at Mamre
was sent " by another, who remains always in the supercelestial
regions, and is seen by no one, and never conversed with any one
in his own person, wlK>m we look upon as the Maker and Father
of the universe.'" And he says that the Jews who thought that

pu^ptm mpwAMt irmc ^rtawf, uu fAOtpw four iX"^ roKfMcu tarw. Dial, cam T fjph.
i 60. p. 157. ed. Beo. (p. S88. ed. Col. 1688.

> <T»« tfxxov TOO 0 Toic ymfouptUMt mm fcvorrer, km •vJbi t$Bmrct » fUktawnot h*
iiunw TOTf, or wwmiv tm ox«r mai vrtintf^ towfxv. Dial, cum Try ph. 4 56. p. 150.
ed. Ben. (ed. Col. p. 875.) The ttme Tiew it alio eipfeeeed ftill more atrongly
in § 137. p. %%0. (ed. Col. pp. 856> 7.)

it was God the Father who appeared to Motes, were on that ac«
count reprehended by Isaiah and our Lord as knowing neither
the Father nor the Son.*

The same view is enforced b; TheophilusoT Antioch, in a pas-
sage already quoted from him in a previous page.*

So also the bishops assembled at Antioch; against Paul of Sa-
mosata, affirm that it was Christ who appeared to the patriarchs,
** sometimes spoken of as an angel, sometimes as Lord, sometimes
as God. For it is impious to suppose that the God of the universe
is called an angel.''*

So Tertullian observes that the God who appeared at various
times to men from the beginning, could be no other than the
Word who was about to become flesh,* and ridicules as an ab-
surdity the supposition that the omnipotent invisible God, whom
DO man hath seen nor can see,' should have walked about in
Paradise, adding with his usual vehemence, that these things
were not to be believed concerning the Son of God if they had
not been written, and perhaps not to be believed of the Father
even though they had been unit ten, ^

And, not to hiultiply authorities unnecessarily, the same view
is laid down in the same peremptory terms by Novatian' and
Eusebiuft.*

I would ask then, Do our opponents consider themselves bound
so to interpret Scripture T If they do, it is more than Augustine
did, for he held that it was probably the Father who appeared

1 Apol. la. % 63. p. ai. ed. Ben. (ed Gol. Apol. 2a. p. 95.)

• 99% p. 193 above.

• IloTt fttv o»c teyykc(,ir(n§^m Kupio(,^oTf/ii B«o( fMcp<rvpev/ufy«c' tot fitrya#6My T*y
oA«y tu^l^ myytkof fojuLwtu kaxu^**. Syn. Atttioah. adv. PaoU 8ano«« io Rontb.
Keliq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 470.

4 Non aliat potuit qaam sermo qui caro erat foturus. Adt. Prax. c. ivi. p. .509.
6 De«M ooiiiipaiatM ille inviiibilit qaem nemo f idit bominum nee fidere potatt.
lb. p. 610.

• Scilicat at b»c nee de Filio Dai credenda fuiaie ai aeripta non eaaant, for*
taaae nan credenda de Patre liaet acipta. lb. p. 510. And aee bia treatise Adt .
iad. c. 9. med,

1 £cce idem Moysea refert alio id loco, quod Abraba yisue sit Dens. Atquin
Mem Moyses audit a l)eo, quod nemo bominum Detim Tideat et vivat. 8i videri
BOO potest Deus qoomodo viaos est Deus 1 Aut ai visas eat, qoomodo videri noo
potest! Nan et Jofaannes, Deum nfino, Jnquit, -ndit umquam,^ £t Apoatolas
Paulus, Quern vidit hominum nemo nee videre potest, Sed non utique Scriptura
mentilur. Ergo vere visus est Deus. Ex quo inteHigi potest, qudd non Pater
visas sit, qui nunquaffi visna eat, sed Filins. Da Trin. c, 86. See alee e. 36.

8 See hia Demonstr. Evangel, lib. v. c. 9. p. 384. (ed. Got. 1688.) and ec. 13,
14. pp. 389 — 41, Ac. If any ptasage can be produced from tbe Ante-Nicene
Fathera opposed to tbia view, (and 1 sball not nndartake absolutely to deny tbe
potnbilitff of a«ch a paasage being found,) I bave only to observe tbat ita aole
•fieet will be to shift this example to tba previous head, but I auapeot tbat it will
be aifficuU 10 do ao.

iro dxtihe mw^muAvr. 929

on some oceaaions ;^ and evkteotlj consideredy as many others
have doue since, that the view we havo shown to have been
taken by the Ante-Nicene Fathers was an Jirictn view of the
subject*

(2.) The doctrine taught by the Fathers as to the re-appear-
ance of Enoch and Elias hereafter on earth from the place to
which tbey are transtaled, (which Irenaeus tells us, as from apos-
tolical tracKtien, is the Paradise in which Adam was) to wage
war with Antichrist.

^ The Presbyters who are the disciples of the Apostles,^ says
Iremfius, ''say that those who were translated, were translated
thither, [L e. to the Paradise in which Adam was].'*'

'* Eno^ and Elias," says Terttiiliatt, '' are translated, neither
isiheir death found ; that is, it is delayed ; but they are reserved
to die at a future time, that they may extinguish Antichrist with
their blood."*

So Hippolytus tell us that Enoch and Eliai are the two wit-
nesses spoken of in Rev. xi., who are to prophesy S60 days
clothed in sackcloth.' -

Justin Martyr in like manner bears witness that Elias is to
come ^ when our Lord Jesus Christ is about to come in glory
from heaven. "•

A similar testimony is borne by Origen, though it is not so
confidently stated by him.'

So Pseudo^yprian, *' Likewise Enoch, who before the deluge
was a righteous man and pleased God, and therefore was trans-

1 See Aagattiae, De Trio. Kb. ii. cc 7—10. ed. Ben. torn. viii.

2 Contr. Maximm. Arian. lib. ii. c 36. torn, Iriii. ool. 784 el feq.

' Ikbh. adv. H»r. lib. ▼. c. 5. See alto lib^ ir. e. 16. ed. Maaa. (c. 30. ed.
Grab.) AagnadBe intimatea the aame, De Peccat. Mer. et Remisa. lib. i. e. 3.
tom. X. col. 3. et Op. imperf. cootr. Julian, lib. vi. t, 30. torn. x. col. 1860. bat
eUewhete epeaka doubcfirfly. De pec. orig. c. 23. tom. x. col. 864. Cbryaoatom
intimatea that the place where Enoch ia, ia not known. In Oen. c 4. hom. 21.
^ 4. tom. It. p. 187.

« Tranalatua eat Enoch et Heliaa, nee mora eorom reperta eat ; dllata aoilicet ;
«eter«m moritnri reaerrantur ot Antiohrittara aangnine ano extingnant. Ter«
TULi.. De anima, e. 60. p. 801. Sea also e. 85. p. 291.

i Miotr fxwi wi MofMtS'A rren rxf tr/j^mif Twt vrt ttt ^tffiutm *rw n/ftir«rrec w^fMft
•a-QfAtmt «r* tv)^wtm tnumm, Li> e. Daniel ix. 27.] it Wo/a^h n-$ fitm ifjuvu yji^rtdu oi

MfMf^mu vAMXwst f4/n*»ouu tm hMt luu TATt Toic idfta-i itATAyytkxnvK. HiPPOt. De
Antichriflto ^ 43. pp. 20, 21. ed. Fabric. And aee §§ 46» 47 where he rcfera to
thia aa a fulftlmenl of Mai. iv. 6. and Rev. xi. 3.

6 'O «<MTi^ Ko^ rtno ctvre m *mc ^s^tyfuwir dunu intfiit$u yw9Tpumfy fnem luu

wtuae)4ft0-Bki 0 ji^uinMc avptof l»#ovc \^f*nC' DiaL eum Tryph. § 49. p. 146. ed.

Ben. (p. S68. ed. Col. 1688.)

7 £oMi yt im twrm [i. e. Mai. iv. 6, 6.] Iti^wi^m ^ti itfrntfrntu o Hxmk « mt^^
Xuwtmiwtl9ftm, Oooim. in Matth« lom. xiii. i 2. vol. iii. p. 672. Bee aW hia
Cobb, in Job. 1. ^n^ {▼. p. M*

lated alive in the iesh in which he was born from that worid to
a place which Ood knows ; from which place at the end of the
World he has to be brought again into this world, whence he was
translated, to confoand and resist antichrist ; and being slain bj
him, they shall fdfil their witneto and lire for ever to everlasting
ages."*

So Pseudo-Ambroee or Hilary the Deacon. " Therefore, he
attributes this to himself, because he was always in wantt suffer-
ing persecutions and afflictions beyond others, as Enoch ai^ Elias
«hall suffer, wfco m the last times are to be Apostles. For they
are to be sent before Christ to prepare the people of God and
fortify all churches to resist Antichrist; and the Apocalypse wit-
nesses that they are to suffer persecution and to be slain.'"

So Augustine intimates that it is believed that Enoch and Elia»
Are to return to the earth and there die.'

Chrysostom expressly asserts that EHias himself is to reappear
on earth before our Lord's second advent^

And lastly, Arethas tells us that ** there is an uninterrupted
tradition in the church, that Enoch shall come with Elias the
Tishbite, (for they shall both come to bear witness beforehand to
these that are then living, that they may not be deceived by the
seductive miracles of Antichrist,) and bear witness for the space
of three years and a half."'

And to these might be added several other similar testimonies.

So that, as it respects the coming of Elias before our Lord's

1 1tem Enoch, qai ante dilaTiom Deo joatat eomplaeait, et ideo de iito moDdo
in oaraie wm luitiviute vivnt trenfllatni eet in loco ubt Dent scit ; ex qpo loco
tn coneunioiitione mondi innovtri babet in hoc mondo, onde etiam tranalatus eeC,
ad confondendam et rerioceBdum antichristnm. A qno Interfecd martyria tna
complebantt Tmntee in ateraum in secala tecabnim. De Montibnt 8ina et
6ion. Inter Cypr. Op. ed. Pamel. 1617. p. 290.

t Hoc ideo pereons mm depntat qoia temper in neoeeaitate fnit, peraecntiooea
et preeaoraa ultra ceteroa paaeoa, aicat paeeuri aant Enoch et Eliae, qni alttme
tempore futari sunt apostoH. Mitti enim babent ante Chriatnm ad prsparandnm
popalam Dei, et muniendaa omnea eccleaiaa ad reaiatendnm Anticbriato, qaoa ct
peraeciitionea pati et oocidi lectio apocalypaia teatator. PaauDo-AMBBoarua (aaid
by eome to be, Hilarioa Diaeonoa) in Ep. la. ad Corinth. Inter Ambroe. Op. tern,
ai. Appendix Col. IM. ed. Ben.

* Ciedantar etiam reditnri ad hano Titam, et qnod tamdiu dilatnm eat moritori.
Ave. De Gen. ad lit lib. ix. c. 6. Op. tom. iii. pt. 1 col. 347.

• 4 Afuti^uuwufo (krw^tu. El e Arrt^irr^t ify*TM mu e Hxmc %fx*^*^> ^'^ ^^ ^^

nAvM tm $f»iif*»y *tu.u»M* tfTA Tvc wM.fmcMLf «/«n»<. Chryaoat in Bp. ^. ad Th«aa.
c 5. horn. 9. ^ S. uhd. xu p. 488. <Ot' 10 fjoaymp tan, irt Hxmt (tm i^;t*^«u juu
«frMHCiT«mini irairr*, nvttit Hmm e»n, tuu *nf Ton ttofAwn tm Xmiltmft tmrtpo^tr or'
m /f tir») oTi 0 fUKxm §fx*ff^ »*t« tw *tf$ir«9 nt imxwim^ \mtmm Hhm» uMXm. . . .
mrmf y^ mu9ot *nshimf€c irr«i irAfwv-uLf^ dime wrtt <nc Wf^v^tif tymtn ftfipofMs.

In. In Matt xrii. 10, horn. 67. % 1. tom. vii. p. 677.

• K«i OTI fam Hamt ifu • anwymtc ^x«r, irpo^fyofm^^^in «»r ?^m#»c hm. M«/«;^mv . . .
nm it TMT Ev»x t**f^f*^ f*^ **^ ^^ '"^ frmfwrim tun tm yfti^nt h» txjffAW^ wk» «^

tecond advent, it baisertcd bj Haetius,^ MaldonatuSt* and Mede^
three as able witneases as we could desire in such a case, it was
declared bj the unanimous consent of the Fathers; while Mr.,

Mede, though he ** thinks that the opinion hath some

matter of truth in it/* adds, '< as for Elias the Thisbite's coming,
I find no ground at all but the contrary, ^^^^

Now, J would ask. Is this to be received as '< revelation ?*'

With respect to Enoch particularly, I might ask, how this is
to be reconciled with the declaration of Scripture, that Enoch
was translated that he should not see death. (t«» ^ ihn i«v«"
T«f,) (Heb. xL 5.) I miffht raise other difficulties to the reception
of^hese statements. But I content myself with putting the ques<i
tion to my opponents; Do you yourselves feel bound to believe
this as you would if you found it stated in Scripture ? If not^
then by that very fact you prove that you do not consider
*' catholic consent*' in such points at least, as a certain witness
of what the Apostles delivered.

(9.) The doctrine of the Fathers as to the absolute unlawful-
ness of an oath to a Christian.

Irenseus says, that our Lord ^ hath commanded us not only, not
to swear fabely, but not to swear at all. "^

Justin Martyr, that he has commanded us ''not to swear a^
all."'

So Clement of Alexandria says, that Plato's precept against an
oath agrees with our Lord's prohibition of it.'

'< I say nothing," says Tertullian, ^' respecting perjury, since it
is not lawful even to swear."*

Basilides the martyr, when required to take an oath, affirmed
that it was not lawful for him as a Christian to swear at all."

^fivrrttc %$A mnvf i!£vf firr* Hxiei/ rw Q^fSnov (i^wo't y*p ^fmTp^iAfjMftvpmT^tu ^elc
w9-t Ton um tott 03r»nxiM tov hmj(ttv*rvu irdLpttyta^M cnfxmtt) >utt m tin f/imf^pm
vtaurn rfiAifiu Xf«99f TpiiTUit xtu ifAi^uK- Abxth. c. 80. CoiniD. in Apoe. c. U.
pp. 743, 4. ed. 1681.

1 CoDfltans Mi Pfttrum omniamqae coniensa probatisf ima et receptlMima Be<
cleauB opinio. Not. in Orig. Comm. in MaU. torn. xiii. In Op. Orif . torn. iff. p.
bit,

s In Matth. xi. 14.

a Works, pp. 98, 9.

4 lb. p. 99.

s Non aolnm non peijarare sed ntc jnrare pnecopit Iech. AdY. hmt, lib. if. c.
82. ed. Mass. c. 56. p. 187. ed. Grab.

• Tlift /iTov fiin tfjinfdu oxm, mxuBn J'txryw an, wrmc itAfVUlKmtvmftv u9 o^M>rt ex«c>
it r.y. Apol. 1. 4 16. ed. Ben. p. 68. (Col. 1688. Apol. 3. p. 63.)

of»o(<rt«i{pi mcnroc «««r»r«. Strom, lib. ▼, p. 707. ed. Potter, (al. p. 696.) 8eie slsb
his Podaf . Kb. iii. c. 1 1. p. t99. (al. 865.)

• Taceo do peijurio, qaando nejurare quidem Keeat. De IM. e. 11. p«*9l.

• Mji i/fiMMi «tv>rw to WAf^ rm fuvfmi /nygtfluMwi i, ;|^MrTM»#f«M iimfjfjm* Ctsii.
HIrt. Bed. lib. vL e. 6. *.-.•...

VOL. I. '«»•'•'

§26 PATBtRTOAL TBAVXtlOll

Cyprian afflrmn, that Christians are not to take an oath,* and
comforts them in the prospect of death, on the ground that if they
lived they' might be obliged to take an oath^ which was not law-
M«

Or%enr expounds our Lord's precept in the same way.*

Lactantius says, that the Christian will not swear at aH ;*

Eusebtusy that the Christian has learnt from Christ not to swear
at all ;»

Basil says that an oath is altogether forbidden in the Oospel,*
and of Gregory Thaumaturgus he tells us, that ** he avoided oathst
not going beyond yea and nay, on account of the command of
Christ, who says, • I say unto you, swear not at alt/ **'

Epiphanius says, that our Lord, in Matt v. 84^ ordained that
it is not lawful to swear, either by the Lord or by any other
oath ; fi>r it is wicked to swear ;* and that the Christian religion
requires us not to swear either truly or falsely, but to say yea,
yea, nay, nay.»

Oirysostom speaks at large to the sameefiect, in his homily on
Matt r. 97—87, saying, that it was allowed in the Law of Moses,
only '*on account of the infirmity of those who received the
Lnw;**^^ and elsewhere he says, — ** Let the Ohristtans altogether
avoid oaths, attending to the saying of Christ . • [Mntt v. 84.]
• . Let no one tbererore tell me, * 1 swear in a just cause,' for it
b not lawful to swear^ either in a just or unjust cause.''^^ And
•gain, in a still more remarkable passage,—*'' But if you reve«
rence nothing ebe, yet at least reverence the book which you

1 Non jontndQin. Taftim. td Qairln. Kb. iii. test IS.p. S18 sd. 1617.

• Cooip«IMf jnrtra quod non licet. De mortal, prope init. od. Ptoiel. 1(^7. p.

s Yetiiil omniiio Janre. ComilDeDt. Seiiet in MatU § 17. Op. vol. iii. p. 84S*
Beptaled ib. \ 1 10. p. 9 10. ad. Bened.

« Hie nop pojecabit, oa Daaa iodibrio habaat ; tad na jorabit qnidam. Div. IiuU
Bpit. a. 6, p. 606. ad Cant. 1686.

i To /u«/W mfOfiutuikf9*tyir9KkMf y% Im vnofuttt iut *n itf^ Mnov fuuBmrm wilt cfcw-
9*i hm- Pisp. Bfaof* liU i, e. 4. p. IS. ad. QoU 1688. Sea alae hit Damonti.
Evans, lib. i. a. 6. p. S8.

• B» Tw EMt»fMi Tmrvm tany^fmntu. Ham. Prim, in Paalm. xit. § 6. ad. Ban.
tail. i. App. p. 866. ^9% also hit Epiat 199. Amphilocb. Can. 29. touk iii. p.
t94.

TBa»>aTM»r«fM«CJis«0a^fMi»iiiUoc,«, . . . «^Mv/ufw<TO?«iJuu«niev,^To«'po0^«-
yum tm Tmm tw iivwtoc^ s. t x. Cfpiat 207. ad cler. Naoctta. § 4. torn. 8. p. 312.

a 6N^nr«i 4vr X^fm^ . . . av^rrer /uv ouf, irt «v lu ofcywiu, et/Tt mtrn «ror Kv^mv ovrt
AXXfv <nne ^a«r tmt ym^ mmpon im to aiAwm^. Her. 19. Oaaan. % 6. torn. i. p. 44.

•d. Par. 1622.

• M» tfjmfm a^uMt, /Kiffo or «m6im, ^mti m -^wlu «aa« ii*i^ ftHftuu ov, oa Xf>oip.
Bar. 69w Catbar. § 7. p. 499.

!• Ttc mfimmf 'rm St^mmm Tovr lo/uovc. Horn. 17. in Malt. % 6. took Wi. p. 229.
Saa tl» wMa of %h ^X 7. pp. 228-238.

u Tmt ffmm A mtMmm ^myi^ mmm ni€ tttn^mmm voa Xftrrtu . . . Malt ▼.
84.1 . . • Ma «MW Mm aim, in mt h»mm •fAWfW oua «{om y^ ovrt «ri immm ovrf

Ham. 16. in Oanaa. ii. 20. i 6. look !▼. p. 122.

bold out to 9meaii bj, and open the goipel which jou take ieto
your baodv, aod comouuid men to swear by ; and having beard
what Christ there says respecting oaths, be alarmed and desist «
• . I do not weep and lament so much at bearing of men being
murdered in the highways, as I weep and lament, and am horror-
struck, when I see a man approaching to this table, and placing
his hands upon it, and touching the gospel, and taking an oath •

When you are about to adjure any one, restrain thy*

self, and prevent it, and say to him who is about to swear, What
shall I do to you ? God hath commanded me not to adjure ; he
DOW restrains me. This is sufficient, both for the honour of the
Lawgiver, and for thy safety, and to inspire fear into him who is
about to swear. For when he sees that we thus fear to adjure
others, he will be much more afraid to swear rashly.*'*

Jerome says,-—*' This [L e. to swear by God] had been allowed
by the Law as to children, that as they sacrificed victims to Ood
that they might not offer them to idols, so they might be permit-
ted to swear by God, not because they might properly do this,
but because it was better to swear by God than by derik But
the truth of the gospel does not admit of an oath.''^

'' We find," says Theodoret, ''in those laws [i. e. the Gospel]
that he who swears, though he swears truly, is a partaker of the
devil's portion.'*' And again ; " The old Law forbids a falsehood,
but the new even an oatb."^ And again,— ** Our Saviour,
making laws respecting oaths, forbids oaths altogether, saying
that yea and nay suffice for a confirmation of what is said."^

1 Sv A M /uW^ iTf**, fltvT* yoyf to /M^joy ^uUr^t • irfrmm m ifMT, mi to hm^-

X^f( mat ilAXiywveu, ^^of luu tanrriSh * . Ov^ oCrm t^twm mti i'Mttfum r^«{o/u»evf
rnmvm ^rimt ir roue oJottt mc rrvn* tuu ^auifvm »«f ^fn^th MnM^«r dm Tirtc «Aiwitr nc
frp^tarffn rMnn f^M^«f tuu Ttic ;t*^r Bmrtt, %m *rm wmyyitjm «44i/Mror ««i o/uyMPTM
. . E^m^tfv /M\x«f Tiira ifiu(uff vnv^H owtfrof, tuu jMi^vtf'ov, mu im Tfot rtr /uixxovt*
•/uFvftfi, T/ 0^t x-^/M-* ; • QtH wojuct fM cf)u(i.r mufoc /a% »«n;|^M W9> Afuti rovrt umt
flir Ti/uar tov HfM^tnrm'nf, uat uc M'^iUiMir ryy, luu ut ft/if rut f/UKKOfTH cfmnmh
*0««r yup mUfH Wv, on ifam-au tryoug «w» i^tmmfw, womm ^MtfAAtr mtfrt tu^m wft*
wvrm ^•^^ncu, Homil. 15. Ad pop. Antiooh. De Sutoii. ^ 5. torn, ii. p. 169.

' Hoe quif i pftr?ali« faerat Lege eonoeetaiD, at qaomodo ▼ietimac immoUbant.
Deo, ne eee idoUe imiDoUreot: eic et jarare permittarentar in Deam : non qaod
racle hao faeereot, eed qaod meliaa aeaet Deo id exhibere qaam daoiooibaa. £ vaa •
gelica aolam veritaa non raeipit joraoientoni. In Matt. lib. i. e. 6. ▼▼. 84, et aec.
Tom. Yiiool. 80. ed. Van. 1769. See alao hie Comm. in Zeeh. c. 8. ▼▼. 16, 17.
Tom. 6. col. 860.

* Uvfifacfm 0 mmts rm ve/uiat ... tot •^Fvrr«, a«r tujAwm 9/iAnn, nt ikt^xmMt
mtm rvfAfMBfw. Qa»aL in Genet, q. 87. Op. ed. Sohalse, 1769. torn. i. p» 48.

^*0 fjm mcxMBf doraeycfam t« fawfeg, hMyttH »mt*ff «^mv. Usral. Fab. tfb. ▼.
a* is. torn. iv. p. 485.

6 Ilfi e^aar HfMvt TiOur, aou ac^rovf tartryofttm rms opmmt «^;^ ynm t* Niu, Mmt
TO Ov, wfc mf rmr hry^/Mm (inf^Mmrn* Orec. Aflect. Car. dim. ix. lorn. ir. p.
946. 8ee alao hie Dialog. 1. ImmatabUifl, ton. \f, p. 84. and Bp. 78. torn* It. p.
1184.

Lastlr, it 18 said in the Acts of the Councii of Constantinople,
under Fla vianus, in 446, that ** we have been commanded bj our
Saviour Christ not to swear/'*

Now I would ask both the Romanists and our opponents, whe<^
ther on account of this consentient testimony of the Fathers they
consider themselves bound to believe this doctrine, and interpret
Scripture accordingly, or whether they do not consider them-
selves at perfect liberty, as far as that testimony is concerned, to
admit or reject it, and whether they have not in fact wholly re«
jected it. If so, then it clearly appears that practically they
admit this consentient testimony where they like it, and reject it
where they dialtke it, dealing with it in fact as with any other
determination of *< a number" of fallible men. Away, then,
with their pretence of considering themselves bound to interpret
the Scriptures according to the unanimous testimony of the Fa-
thers. If their notion is good for anything, it is a principle by
which we tnuM. abide, and receive all things so proved. But if
they themselves reject this testimony when it displeases them, it
is deceiving men to tell them that they are bound to believe this
or that doctrine or interpretation of Scripture because there is a
consentient testimony of the Fathers in its favour, when there
arc other doctrines and interpretations, having the same support,
which they themselves either wholly disbelieve, or at least hold
doubtful.

(4.) Standing at prayer on Sundays, and during the period be-
tween Easter and Whitsuntide.

The author of the "Questions and answers to the orthodox/'
in the works of Justin Martyr, gives the following question and
answer : '* Why on Sundays, and from Easter to Whitsuntide,
do they not kneel when praying] And whence was this custom
introduced into the churches?" The answer is, that we are to
stand at those times, as a sign of the resurrection ; and it is add-
ed, that *' the custom commenced, from •Apostolical timeSf as
the blessed IrensBUS, martyr, and bishop of Lyons, says.'"

Now let us hear Tertullian ; — " We account it a crime to
kneel at prayer on a Sunday.""

Lastly, we have the determination of the great Council of

I ErrrrctXTAi ifM irafa rou Irnnnf^ X^irrev fit e/Mor«i« AcU CoQcil. Conttaat
Act 1. IntMT Act. CoDC. Chile Coneil. torn. !▼.

> Aiflt Ti • rat( wfkouut i/unifxitt «ci mtc tov irato^m, W rat mmHucmt yofu ov uKiwf
rn ^ tuj(itfAW4 ; ir«6» i* luu n tm«vtii n <nuc mttiatruut 11011x61 9wnAiUL ;...£« *rm
(tfro^^nhjxmf ^^fmm » tm«vt» rvradtMC ixa^ tkv *^PX^ nrnhmt ^wo-gt 0 fouutfiot MjfmMM «
fuMftut MM kjnowfmt Awyimm¥, Qanst. 116. Inter Op. Jatt. M«rt. ed. Ben. pp.
489, 90.

3 Die Dominico jejonioni ne/bt ducimu§, vti de genicuUs aiUrart. TertoU.
De Cor- Mil. c. 8. p. 102« ed. 1664.

HO otTim urroiMAifT. M9

Mice;—- ^' Since there are some who kneel on the S«Miaj niid at
IVbitauntidey in order that all things may be observed alike in
every diocese, the Holy SyiKxi decrees that they shall ofier their
prayers to God staoding."^

Can our oppooents get better testimony in the Fathers to tbe
apostolicity and the importance of any custom of the primitive
church than we have here ?" But the Romanists themselves
have wholly rejected this custom.

(5) The threefold immersion in baptism* which is witnessed to
by Tertullian,' Jerome,' Cyril of Jerusalem,^ Ambrosey* and wri-
tinge passing under the names of Dionysius Areopagita,* Athana-
sius^ Auffustine,' and Basil.'

(6) Inrant communion, Or the giving of the eucharist to in-
fants.

On ttus point I need only refer to the learned work of Mr. Bing-
ham on the antiquities of the Christian church, who has fully
given the authorities on this subject, and whose opinion is, thiit
** it is beyond dispute" that this was the practice of the church
for many ages, and esteemed to be necessarv bv divine com-
mand;^® and even tbe Romanist Maldonat, in toe face of an op-
posite decision of the Council of Trent, ** asserts roundly that
the antientsy and particularly SU Austin and Pope Innocent, did
believe that infants could not be saved without partaking of the
eucharist," and that this was the practice of the church for the
first six centuries.'^

And hence Bishop Stillingfleet, after noticing the points
which had been adduced by his Ronush antagonist, as instances
of cases in which we depend upon ** tradition" for the knowledge

turM^iti tm 6W- Can. xz. JoftolL Cod. torn. up* 94*

s De Cor. Mil c. 3. p. 103.

' Adv. Ladfer. § 8. Op. torn. ii. coL 180. sd. TsO. Tenet

« Cat MyaUff. it p. S86. ed. Millaa.

' De SaenuD. lib. ii. e. 7. .

' De ecdea» hierarch. e. 2.

^ Qoaat in Paalm q. 93. torn. ii. p. 337-

' Serm. 40- In App. (al. De temp. 301.) torn. v. App* col* 79.

* De 8pir. Sanet e. 37, torn. iiL p. 66«

>o Bk. !▼. e 4. ^ 7.

" BiveiAK'a Antiq. ib. See alio Zobviz Hiatoria Euebariat. infiuit e. xL ^
S. et pamim. MoBTov'a Catb. App. ii. 36. § 10. p. S36. Dail. De «mu Patr.
i. 8. Wbxtbt Diieeit de S^ 8. inteipret aee. Patr. pp. 318; 4ec in Job. vi. St.
Watirlabd baa attempted to abow tbat Aagaatioe could not bave eonaidered
it abtolately neceeaary, but i^mi to me onlj to prove tbat aome otber paaaagee
of bia worfci appear aoroewluit inconsistent witb sncb a notion, wbicb bowever,
cannot ooiweigb bis clear sutementa on tbis subject (See Waterlanda Works
vol. iz. ppk 478, dba.) See Daille and Zorniosy e. 13. ^ 3.

no FArawrtCAi T»ADino«

«f tima, and whidi 1 need hardly mj, are moit of them Ibe
•ame that are relied upoo by our oppoDeots, at infant bapfisn,
the ohservkDce of the Lord't Day, &c., which the bishop sbowi
are sufficiently deducible from Scripture, adds,—" But Boethialu
aD author who would seem so much versed in Augustine, n^ht^
among all these instances, have found outonein<»re, whicbwooM
have looked more like a doctrinal tradition than most of these*
which is t/ie necessity of the eucharitt to baptized im/antt.
The place* are eomany andsoexpretsin him concerning it, that
it would be a needless taak to produce them. 1 shall only, therefore,
refer you to your Eepencaeus (De Eucharist ad Orat. I. n. c 12.)
who hath made some collection of theio. When you have viewed
them, I pray bethink yourself of aome convenieat answer t»
them, which either must be by asserting that S. Augustine might
be deceived in judging of doctrinal and apostolical IraditioDSrand
then to what purpose are your eight instances out of him? or
else that might be accounted an apostolical tradition in oae age
which may not in another . . . which leaves us in a greater dis-
pute than ever what theee apostolical tniditioDfr are^wben the
church in several ages doth so much differ concerning them."*-

Now with respect to all those points we have Mentioned, I

would ask any impartial reader whether the testimonies we have

not at least ns good' evidence of patristieal coBseat

I Ike TractatoTB are accustomed to rely upon, am) aa

mity be obtained for any doctrine, htterpretatieo* er

hen, I ask our opponents. Do they hold that we must
jm? Will they affirm Ibat these are part of the
Apostolical relics? If not, how are we tg ind such

liut if it be said that these are not vital points, and thereiore
that even consent of Fathers is not sufficteot to establish any
thing reacting them, then let it be clearly anderste«>d that con-
sent of Fathers is only a valid proof of Apostolical tradition
ia matters of vital moment and fundamentaliinportaoceT which
will cut offa large number of Mr. Keble*! " precious apoetolicat
relics," especially the neus ones to which he has alluded, when he
intimates that he may be " so happy m to Jin4 more" than
those hitherto brought to light.

And ifiit must be first determined whether a point is of fun-
damental importance or not, before we can tmsl erea tbe te^
timony of a whole host of Fathers, then how is this to be knews
but by Scripture telling us that thisor that doctrine is necessary*
and so informing us of the very point in question; for I suppose

I Ralianil Acconnt, &c. pp- IBt, T.

MO PIVllll ntFOKIIAllT. Ml

it can hardlj be left to the Fathers to determbe what is and is
not necessary and fandamental, or at any rate if it is* I know not
where we are to find their decision upon the point ; and if our
opponents refer us to the formulae they have given as *' the
Creed,'* or ** Rule of Faith/' as containing the complete list of
fundamentals, then (not to repeat the objections we have already
urged against such a notion^) we set from the earliest Fathers a
list of fundamentals* comprising less than is contained in **the
Apostles' creed ;" and moreover, the assurance that all the points
thus enumerated are clearly and plainly laid down in Scripture.
And if we seek to get beyond even the lbttbr of this brief ele-
mentary summary of the faith, we shall find the Fathers all at
variance on the highest points.

There is one more remark* also, which I would make upon
the reply (if offered) that catholic consent is not, in such points
as these, a sufficient proof of Apostolical tradition ; which is
this, that this admission annihilates the best* if not the only
ground, upon which such consent is put forward as a proof of
Apostolical tradition in any case^ viz.* that such consent proves
a common origin for the doctrine so delivered, and that it was
derived from a quarter to which the whole church looked up for
instruction. It is said, how can we account for such consent, but
by supposing that the doctrine was originally delivered by
those from whom the whole church learnt th^ faith ? This ar-
gument, then, is as valid for the points we have just been consider-
ing* as for the highest points of faith. If ^consent,'* as it is
called, proves derivation from the Apostles in one case* so does it
in the other; and though the points are of very dififerent im-
portance, yet if they are both the subjects of ^ revelation,'^
they have an equal claim to our belief, as the Word of God.

It is, therefore, justly remarked by Bishop Taylor, — ** It is not
excuse enough to say that singly the Fathers may err, but if
they concur, they are certain testimony ; for there is no question
this day disputed by persons that are willing to be tried by the
Fathers, so generally attested on either side, as some points are,
which both sides dislike severally or conjunctiv ; and therefore
it is not honest for either side to press the authority of the Fa-
thers as a concluding argument in matter of dispute ; unless them-
selves will be content to submit in all things to the testimony of
an equal number of them, which I am certain neither side will
do."*

I See ppw 124 el ae^ ab#f •w
1 Lib. of Proph. § 8»

rAttunoAL TBAsniair

The jiystein of our oppoDcnts reati upon two hjpotbesea; —
Firgtt That there Waa a alend; permaoenl auccesuonal delivery,
from one to another, for lereral agei, throughout the whole
catholic church, of all the important doctrines of ChristiBoitj,
derired from the oral teachiog of the Apoctles, and id which the
teaching of all in communion with that church agreed; — Se-
condly, that the whole catholic church wag so united together
as one bodj, and diKipliae to rigidlj enforced throughout it,
that no parts or indiriduali belonging to it could publicly nwin-
tainany erron of importance, without being excommunicated, or
at least censured, by the church, and so as that such censure
must have come down to as.

These two propositions are tacitly assumed by our opponents,
and are, in fact, tbe foundation upon which their ^tem reata;
but both of tbem will be found, upon investigation, to be con-
trary to facts. Tbev are the v^ «*-■ ^>^, the primary false prin-
ciples upon which their arguments are founded.
In reply to them, I shall endeavour to show,—
First, That from the very beginning there were many here-
Nes, errors, and false doctrines prevalent among the professed fol-
lowers of Christ; aodsecoodly, that such errors were maintaioed
and propagated among those who formed what was called the
catholic church.

Our Lord has aptly compared hia nominal church to a field in

which tares and wheat grow together; and such he lelU as. will

be its character, even to the end ; for be forbids bis angels to sep-

arate them, lest they might inadvertently or by mistake root out

or injure the wheat. Both are to grow together until the har-

vest. Such, then, is the stale of the nominal Christian church.

It contains within it tarea sown by Satan, intermingled with the

of the good seed, who are alone in reality

tii^dom. And I suppose it will readily be

area repreaeot as much those that maintain

ise that are involved in corrupt practice.

may be asked, from the beginning? Waa

en the church contained wheat only ? The

ea clearly prove that, even when they were

ares were already mingled with the wheat ;

of orthodox but inconsistent professors, but

tr unsound in the faith; and that too, among

rs of the faith.

\

\

\

/

1

V

\

1

Ha DlVIMl INFOSMAirr.

There were, from the very first,." false Apo6tI<!i;" ^ ,

\

13.); there were those that preached "aDother gospel,^ ^fMh .
" perverted the gospel of Christ ; and so successfully, as to draw \

over the Oalatians to their doctrines, (Gal. i. 6, 7.); there were
" false brethren, unawares brought in," (Gal. ii. 4.); there were
Sonne who *^ preached Christ, of envy and strife;" whose doctrine,
therefore, as derived from anything but divine teaching, would
vary with the prejudices of the preacher, (Phil. i. 15.); there
were even among the brethren " enemies of the cross of Christ"
(Phil, iii. 16.) Still more, there were those whose teaching was
calculated to "spoil" Christians, " through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ (Coh ii. 8.) There were those who
would forge letters in the name of an Apostle, to promote their
views. (2 Thess. ii. 2.) In fact, " the mystery of iniquity" was
** already working." (2 Thess. ii. 7.) " Some, having swerved,
had turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of
the law, understanding neither what they said, nor whereof they
affirmed." (1 Tim. i. 6,c7.) There were those who, *• concerning
faith, had made shipwreck," and " blasphemed." (1 Tim. i. 19,
20.) There were those that addicted themselves to "profiuie
and vain babblings and oppositions of science, falsely so called,"
and had, consequently, " erred concerning the faith." (1 Tim. vi.
20, 21. See also vv. 4, 5.) There were those that taught that
the resurrection was then already past. (2 Tim. ii. 18.) There
were " tnanf unruly and vain talkers and deceivers," who " sub-
verted whole bouses, teaching things which they ought not, for
filthy lucre's sake." (Tit i. 10, 1 1.) There wer^ those who, when
they " ought to have been teachers, bad need that one should
teach them again which were the first principles of the oracles
of God.'' (Heb. v. 12.) There were "unlearned and unstable"
persons, who wrested the Scriptures unto their own destruction.
(2 Pet. iii. 16.) There were already " many false prophets gone
out into the world," and the people were to " try the spirits
whether they were of God;" for which St John gave them — not
a direction to follow the catholic church or catholic consent, or
submit themselves to certain earthly guides — but a doctrinal test
(1 John iv. 2; and see 2 John, 7 — 10.)

Such was the condition of the church, even in the Apostolical
times ; and the warnings given on this point with respect to the
future are clear and decisive. " I know this," says St Paul to
the elders of Ephesus, " that after my departing, shall grievous
wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Jllso of your
own selves shall i'^en arise^ speaking perverse things, to draw
away disciples after them." (Actsxx.d0.) "There were false
prophets abo among the people'' [of the Jews], says St Peter,

i'

/
/

/

/

^w

*'even as there iball \itfaUt teaehan amengyou^ wko privily
shall bring in damnable heresies^ even denying the Lord that
ixMight tlieiDt and briog upon themsehret swift destruction, ^nd
mwny^ shall follou) ikeir pemieiota taaysj bv renson of whom
the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." (2 Fel. ii. 1, 2.)

That these prophetic announcements, moreover, were fullj
«bCComplishedt even in the next generation after the Apostles, we
have very decisive evidence.

Thus we are told, by Eusebius, that Ignatius, when on hn way
to Rome to sufier martyrdom, (where he was put to death about
the year 116^) admonished the churches of Asia, as he passed
through, *'to take especial heed of the. heresies that were then
first springing up and iucreasing.'^^

So Papias, who flourished in the year 110, intimates that
there were those in bis time who delivered strange and spurious
precepts.'

Again, Uegesippus, who flourished about the year 170, and is
said by fiusebius to have been in the first succession after the
Apostlesy'and by Jerome to have bordered on the Apostles* iimes,«
tells us (according to Eusebius) that until the time of Trajan*
the church remained a pure and uncorrttpt virgin, those that
endeavoured to corrupt the wholesome doctrine of the gospel of
salvation, if there were any, remaining till then concealed ; but
when the sacred company of the Apostles were in difierent ways
extinct, and the generation of those who bad been thought worthy
to hear the words of divine wisdom with their oVrn ears had
passed away, then the conspiracy of impious error took its rise
through the deceit of laise teachers, who, inasmuch as not one of
the Apostles was left, openly and confidently attempted to incul-
cate their miscalled knowledge in oppoMtion to the preaching of
the truth.*

W9kct^tif9tii mLpnm. Bum. Hist Ecd. iii. 861
> Tmi tf^e^tfc pv$Knt ftni^»9tf^0* Euf cB^ Hift Ecel. iii. e. alt
t Eti TM Tfetnt rti9 Kmmkm ymopi^oc /i«JWk. In. ib. ii. 33.

* VicinQf Apostoljconiro tempofnin. De script, c 2S.

* Dr. RoQth thinks that the words of Hegetsippot refer to eiren an earlier pe-
riod than the timei of Trajan. Bee hw Ratiq. 88* Patr. vol. i. pp. 383, 4.

* For this paesage we H9 indfhted to Evaabiaa* who speaking of Hegesippns
says, *0 *Jif*ros anf iatyuf^ot ta wtr« twc hhrntfumtfut* ^tht^ m a^ f^^Xf '^^ *^^
X/^tm «»t^dfro< MLBof* MM «/|dc^9«^c t/utttm i IBjutMo-m, m tt/itkm irw nttru ^tpjtnrrm
tm^n Ton, rm^ u tuu rttH vmfX'^h ^ntpc^^Bti^ vn^fjufcvrrm «w Cym iutH9m rw irwiMiw

vt i yma mrnn rpf cipviUf tuu^m rut irdiev a^^mc tKrmuv^au Mtvni(u$fwm, tjvsmwim nt
fBwf itkBuiK tuf m^x^ l^^/&tMr il 9v9r^i^it% iim tf rm fr^i^gjrumi^m *ar*fnt^ oi mi
•m jumSwot m rm Km^rtxm fjarofww, yv/jm xouror W)b t» m^«M, rm rut dxa^tmt
wifuryfjutnt <»? '\mimvfMf ym9it mfrmtfvrrm vrMf9i0» %m rm»r€ f^ «vt«( ittfi
rmrm ^mkBJ^ mk 9m «u^. Bnseb. Hist. Em|« iiu 8!^, the Romish edi-

Ko mrnm ihfobmakt. IS5

One single centuiy therefore had hardly ptktsei away after
our Lord's cmcifijtion, before the church became afflicted with
heresies and errors still more opeoly avowed and propagated than ^

in the tiroes of the Apostles. For when Heeesippus here speaks
of the church having renmilieda virgin till the tfane of Trajan^
the passages of Scripture ipioted above citorly show that he
must be understood as speaking compitraUvefyfnni not as deny-
ing that cormptiont existed therein before^ or otherwise he i$
dearly cooCradlrcted by these passages ; from which also we may
correct the statementt of Firmilian and others, who, for the sup-
port of their respective hypotheses, have n»idtained that the
heretics were all posterior to the times of the Apostles. ** What-
ioever,^ says Dr. Routti, ** Firniilian may say to the contrary iik
his Epistle to Cyprian, it is v^ell known that some heresies, and
such as even separated from the commmiioo of the church, ekisted
before the Apostles were dead» certainiy before the death of the
Apostle John. {See 1 John ii. 19; Jude 19 r Itev. il 6, 15.)"'
And therefore, as the same learned writer observes, all tbesie
authors are to b^ interpreted as meaning that the times of Trajan
and Hadrian were froitfill in haeresiarcM, who acted much more
boldly than those who went before them.' Tiiat the seeds of
these heresies existed in the church in the times of the Apostles,
and are alluded to in such passages as those we have quoted
above, is distinctly maintained by TertutUan' and Irenseus.^

But, indeed, what can be plainer than the following statement
of Jerome on this subject? *' While," saitfi he, "* the bk)od of
Christ was yet but recently shed in Judaea;, it was maintained,
that the Lord's body was but an appearance $ the Galatians
drawn away to the observance of the Law were again begotten
to spiritual life by the apostle; the Corinthians disbelieving the
resurrection of the flesh were urged by many arguments to re-
tor of Ewobiofl, VoloMiM. being very mueh troobled with tbif poMage,
thoaf b br tdaitf that Euaebiiio onUeratood HegetlppiM to be speaking of
the ehireb at large, baa tbe face to aaaart that Eofebiaa was in thii mistaken,
and that Hefedppus was only speaking of tbe Obnreb of Jemaalem, thengh we
have nothing left oa of Hegesippns bnt the fcw fragments that Eosebios baa pre-
serfed. A similar passage of Hegesippas on the seme snfajeet is preserred to us
by Eneebins in hb 4lh bfc. c SS. Some have sdppoeed it to be tbe seme passsge
as is here telbifed to, thinking thereby to onrtail the passage giiren above ; but if
EaaeMns is to be tmsted, the passagea were evidently not tbe same, and why
shonid we sappose that there eoald not be two notices relating to the same matter in
the live books of Hege^pas t The ^wj passages we are now consideriug show
that we shonld be wrong in snob a sapptisitioa in the ease of Easebiu*, and wby
therefore ebight we not in that of Hegesippos 1

1 Reliq. 88. Patr. vol i. p. S84.

tn>.

t pe Prascr. haret e. 7 and e. tS.

4 Advk bar. lib. I I9 prsf.

nt PATSItnOAL TBADinoll

turn to the true path. Then Simon MaeuB and Menander his ditei-
pleaflserted themselves to be Powers of God. I^hen Basilides feigned
his great God Abraxas with his three hundred and sixty-five
forms. Then Nicolaus, loAo wcls one of the ^even deacons^ pro*
molged his impurities. I say Dothioff of the heretics.of Judaism.

.... I come. to those heretics who mangled the gospels; a
certain SatuminuSy and the Ophites, and Cainites, and Sethoites,
and Carpocrates, and Cerintbus and his successor Ebion, and
other pests, mo$t qfwhom broke forth during thel\feqfthe^po^
tie JohnJ^ And in the Apocalypse of St. John, he points out as
instances of heretice that, ** To the aneel of Ephesus there b im-
puted the loss of love. In the angel of the church of Pergamos
the eatiftg of things offered to idols and the doctrine of the Nico-
laitans are blamed. Likewise jn the case of the angel of the
Tbyatyreann, the prophetess Je^bel apd the eatinig of things
offered to images and fornications are rebuked."^

Remarkable also is the testimony of* Origen. Many of those
who profess to believe in Christ," he sajrs, '* disagree not only in
snail points and those of no moment, but also in important points,
and those of the highest moment"* And again, in a still more
important pass^ige ; ** I wish that those only who are without the
church were deceived ; it would be easy to avoid the seduction.
But now they who profess to belong to the church are deceived
and misled even on the necessary points^ as their dissension is a
witness, since even those who are within the church are misled,
, ... It is bad to find any one erring in pcunts of morals, but I
think it is rauc^h worse, to err in doctrines, and not to hold that
doctrine which is agreeable to the most true rule ^fthe Scrip*
tures . • . Every one that is perfect .... and that has his
senses exercised for understanding the truth,. will necessarily in
his inquiries fall in with many doctrines opposed to one another^

1 Adhoe apod Jadaain Christi mogiiiDe receoti, pbantMma Domini corpoi
••Mrebaior; OalatM ad obtervationem Legit traduistM Apoaiolua ifteriim patorit;
Corinthioa fwarreotionem carnit non credentw pbiribus argameDlif ad ▼eraoi
iter irabere conatur. Tano SimoD Magat et Menandi^r diidpolut ejai Dei te
aaaeriMfe VinutM : lone Baailidea aommuoi Deam Abraxut eum treeentia aeta*
ginta qninqae EdUioDibaa eomnaDtatua eat; tone Nioolaua, qui nmia da aeptam
Diacoois fait, dia ooctaqoe nqptiaa fjieieiii, obacmiof et audita qiioqae erabeaeea-
dot eoitiia aomoiafit. Taoeo de Jadaiemi hcreticia ... Ad eoe venio hsreticof,
qii Evtngelia laoiaireraDt ; Satoniiiiaiii qaemdam, et OpbiUa et- Geiottoa, et
Setthoitaa, et Garpocratem. et GefiDthaon et hajoa aocceaaoreao Ebionem et e»te-
raa peslea quoram plarioii TiTeote adbac Joaone Apoetolo erapehmt/* ** Angclo
Epbeai deaerU caritaa impatatur. lo angdo Pergamena EceletiB idolothytoroiD
eaua et Nicolaitarain doririDa reprebeoditar. Item apud Angelan Thjratyroram
iezabel propbetiaaa et aimulacrorum eec« et foriiieationee inerepentur." Hica-
OHTM. Dialog, adir. Luciferian. §§ 23, 24. Tom. ii. col. 196—8.

s De Princip. Ub. i. Prsf. Ed. Ben. torn. i. p. 47.

NO DIVINE rifFORMANT. S37

and will hear many professing lo know the truth and different
traditions respecting itJ*^^

To which we nnay add the passages already quoted in a pre-
ceding page;* where he tells us that "from the very beginning
there were differences aniong believers respecting the meaning
of the books that were believed to be divine."

So also Dionysius of Corinth (who flourished a. 170) speaks of
** some teachers" who, in their esteem for the worksof Nepos,an
Egyptian bishop, respecting the millennium, ** despised the law
and the prophets, and neglected to follow the gospels, and made
light of the £pistles of the Apostles."* And these we find 'from
the context, were teachers in the catholic church.

Nay, we find that such a correct successional delivery of doc-
trine as our opponents suppose, was not found even in matters '
relating to the rites and practices of the church, where An altera-
tion is so much less easy than in points of mere doctrine. As, for
instance, m the obseWance of Easter, the varieties in which are
attributed by Irenseus to sonre bishops not being so diligent ais
they ought, and kaving that as a custom to those that came
after them which had been introduced through simplicity
and ignorance,^

And we find Firmilian of Caesarea, in the middle of the third
century, ch?u^ing the church of Rome with many such innova*
tions, and telKng theiti that they vainly pretended apostolical au-
thority for them.* '

And these cortuptions, be it observed, must have been intro-
duced at periods anterior to almost all the records we possess of
the primitive church.

"i Uttnam toK qui ertrt ecclesiam lunt sedaeereAtor; fkoile erat eatere sednc-
tboeiB. Naic aoteoi ipsiqei prafitentiirM eccletia«tnxMi etae de nacewariU qui*
boaque capitatia falluntar et aeilucuntur, ticvt ipan diaaanaio eoram tactimonium
eat, qooDiam et qui intaa sunt aedacuntur; . . . Malam qaidem eatinvenire ali-
quem aecandum mored vits errantem. tQulto autem pejus arbitror ease in dogma-
tibua aberrare, et nOD aecondiiin veri^simam regulam acriptoraitim aentire. . . .
Omnk qui perieotaa eet • . . et qui exerditatoa habec aenaua ad oapiendom, ne*
ceaae eat ut quarena etdiacatieoa ia tnuJta iooorrat doftnatain pnelia, audiet etiam
multoa profitentea Teritatem et diveraas de ea traditionea. Oaie. In Mattb,
Commant Series §§ 33, 35. Tom. iii. pp. 852, 85.3, 854.
B See p. 246 above.

3 Tiv«r fiikff-tutkm tor (*» nfwt x«u rov; w^opn^ <rt fijui'v iycufimmy xm to toic
tuAyyiiaoif fjrw^xt irafun-en* Mu rctc tw ayroo^okm trtmroxmf tM9tw>jffgi9rm. Diovra.
CoE. in EusKB. Hist. Ecclea. vii. 24.

* Tm iTApdL TO axptSic, »c uxof, K^rwvTmy, T»r itet9* durxartnA tua i^urrtvfAW ^vfiSwtt
lie fft (AwvfeuTA vwtentvrm. laiir. Ep. ad Victor, in Evara. Hiat Ecdea. ▼. 24.

& Bos autem qui Roomr auiit ton ea in onnibna obaenrare, qus aibt ab oiigine
tradita. et froatr^ Apoatolorum ancteritAtem pnetandere, acire quia^etiaa iode po-
test quod circa celebrandoa dies paache, et circa muUa alia divine rei aacramen
U, Tideat em6 apud illoa aliquaa divereitatea, nee obaenrari illie omnia aqualiler
qas Hieroaolymis obaerrantnr. Fimxii. Ep* td. Cypr. Inter Ctpk. Ep. 76.

VOL. I. F F

338 PATRISTICAL HUDITIOH

ir, then, such changes could be so easily introduced in matten
relating to the rites and usages of the church, and the innova-
tions claim for themselves Apostolical tradition and authority, as
was the case with those we have just mentioned, how much
more easily might this be done in matters of mere doctrine. And
when such innovations were widely spread, (and if they were
corruptions suitable to the times or the bias of human nature,
they were sure to spread quickly,) then the remains of purer
doctrine or practice were proportionably condemned, and as far
as possible extirpated. It needs no great acquaintance with his-
tory or human nature to see how easily such corruptions might
spread in the church.

To inquire at large into the causes leading to such corruptions
« would here be out of place, where we are principally concerned
with facts. But we may just observe that there were many
such. One of the most miitful sources of such corruptions was
the philosophizing spirit of learned heathen converts, who looked
upon the simple truths of divine revelation as they would upon
the oracles of Pythagoras, of that which was plain making mys-
teries suitable to their own imaginations, and, resolving that to
them there should be no mysteries, boldly declaring the meaning
of everything really mysterious or but partially revealed. Ano-
ther was a love in many for those oral reports of Apostolical tra-
dition which in the earliest age of the church were of course
abundant. Instances of erroneous notions which thus became
prevalent have already been given in a former part of this chap-
ter. Another was .the influence of individuals who, from their
eloquence or any other cause, became celebrated throughout the
church. Who can calculate the mischief which must have been
caused in the church by the wild and unorthodox notioi;is of Ori-
geo, who in his time was looked up to as a prodigy throughout
the church? The early church, accustomed to look up to the
Apostles for guidance, seems afterwards to have been too much
inclined to allow eminent individuals to take their place and to
follow human guidance. Such indeed is the natural disposition
of men in general. They want a lieader, a great name, under
which to enlist themselves. One b of Paul, another of Apollos,
another of Cephas. Hence the almost incredible efiect which
may be produced by one or two able, zealous, and influential in-
dividuals, nay even by one, witness Augustine; a truth to which
Mr. Keble himself has borne testimony;^ and to such influences
the early church was of course much more exposed than we are
at this day. And one great cause of this, as far as doctrine is
concerned, is that men are not satisfied with what is delivered in

1 1

^ir^f. to Hooker, j». liv.

m ibMnH uxfolua'atT. ' 3S9

the Scriptures. Howevet clear and plain the Word of God may
be in all vital points, it is not sufficiently full and distinct in its
revelations to satisfy the curiosity of man; and hence in all ages
men have been anxious to be wise above what is written, the
fruitful source of most of the heresies with which the church of
Christ has been afflicted.

The authorities above cited, then, show that fr6m the very
beginning errors of various kinds gradually crept into the church,
and that complaints of such corruptions are to be found in the
earliest records of the primitive church we possess.

True, such corruptions cannot reasonably be supposed to have
been universally received throughout the church, but neverthe-
less we know that their effects were in some cases widely felt
and they cannot but operate in all impartial and judicious minds
to the prejudice of what comes to us on the authority of a few
individuals. It is both unfair and unwise to demand assent to
such testimony as a certain and infallible record of the faith of
the whole catholic church and the oral teaching of the Apostles.

And were we to pursue the inquiry furthfer, so as to include
the fourth and fifth centuries, we should find the progress of error
still greater, and more fatal in its effects. So far are those cen-
turies from presenting to na^as the Tractators have intimated, a
perfect model of the Christian church, that during them the
thurch was given up as a body to one of the worst heresies by
which it has yet been afflicted, namely, Arianism:* contradict-
ing herself on this point, in the two most General Councils we
read of in ecclesiastical history ;• to say nothing of those nume-
rous other heresies by which «o many of her members were mis-
led ; and even those that remained orthodox, are found counte-
nancing divers errors, fer removed from the spirit of the gospel;
as, for instance, the lawfulness of persecution, and the forced
celibacy of the clergy.

It forms, indeed, one of the strongest arguments against the
peculiarities of the Romish system, that they are almost all, if
not all, doctrines so new and corrupt, that not even among the
incorrect and unorthodox statements to be found scattered among
the works of the Fathers, or the errors which began to pervade
the whole church in the fourth and fifth centuries, can they find
any substantial evidence in their favour.*

And this leads me to the second point, viz., to show more dis-
tinctly,

• . .1

t See Hieron. adr. Looifer.; liberit Epist ad Urtac. Valent. et Germ, in Oper
HUarii Piet. Frag m. 6 col. I8d8» 9, et Ep. ad Vincent, ibid. eol. 1340 ; Oi«gor.
PTazianz. orat. dl ; Vine. Lir. c. 6.

2 See p. 155, 156, and 276. 277, above,
dee JeweU'a famotti challenge to the Romanists, in his sermon.

840 PATBIIIXiPia^ TftAPITXOir

Secondiy, TbM such errorawere from ttie begioQiog maia-
tained and propagated among those who formed what was called
the catholic church.

The notion that what was called <' the catholic church'' was
always so united together as one body, and discipline so rigidly
enforced throughout it, that no communities or individuals be-
longing to it could publicly maintain any errors of importance,
without boing excomnuinicated« or at least censured, by a judg-
ment of the whole churchy and so as that censure must have
come down lo us, is one altogether contradicted by facts.

We may 6nd a proof of this, even in the Apostolical churches
mentioned in Scripture. Thus St Jude^ in bis Catholic Epbtle,
warns the churches, that there were^< certain men crept in un-
awares ;" ^' ungodly men, turning the^race of (xod into laecivi-
ouaness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus
Christ,'^ that were "spots in their feasts of charity, when they
(easted with them ;'* words which show that they were in the
communion of the churches, (Jude vv. 4, 12.) Again, in the
church of Pergamos, there were those that held the doctrine of
Balaam^ and the doctrine of the. Nicolaitans, (Rev. ii. 14, 15.);
in the church of Thyatira, whose " vyorks, and charity, and ser-
vice,, and faith and patience are praised, the false prophetess, Je-
zebel, was suH*ered tu teach, and to seduce the servants of God.
(Rev. ii. 19,20, 24.) Sardis, though enjoying the same "nanf)e
and pretensions to spiritual life" as the others, as an Apostolical
church, was, as a church, dead; and had but " a few" faithful
servants of God. (Rev. iii. 1, 4.) Laodicea, an Apostolical church
in name» like all the rest, was altogether corrupt, spiritually
" poor, and blind, and naked." (Rev.iii. 14 — 19.) OiKe more ;
over the church in which Gains was, to whom St. John address-
ed his third Epistle, presided Diotrephes; and of him and bis
conduct, the Apostle says, — " I wrote to the Church, but Dio-
trephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among, them, re-
ceiveth us not ... and not content therewith^ neither doth he
himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would,
and casteth them out of the church.^ (8 John 9, 10.)

Now suppose a man who had never enjoyed the benefit of
personal converse with the Apostles, ende^vouringi some fifty
years only after their death, to ascertain the orthodox doctrine,
by the testimony of <* the church." It will, of course, be ad-
mitted,— as, indeed, it is a known fact, — that the heretics gene-
rally pleaded as much for their doctrine being Apostolical, as the
orthodox did. The passages above quoted, indeed, would alone
prove thtit they endeavoured to shelter themselves under the
authority of the Apostles. And by this time such churches as
Sardis, Laodicea and th<|t over which Diotrephe? preside(}» spiri-

KO DXVmfi INPOSXAKT. 341

hially aRve in futme, and spiritually dead in/act^ vrould natural-
ly have increased; for here are three specitically pointed out to
us in the Scriptures that became so, even under the very eye and
superintendence of the Apostles. Now I beg to ask, how is the
enquirer to determine which are the Laodicean, ^nd which the
orthodox churches ? For mark, here is an end at once to the
notion of there being catholic consent in all important points
in all the Apostolical churches. There has evidently been no
such thing, even from a period previous to the death of the Apos-
tles. What, then, would have been his best and only sufficient
test to judge by, in the absence of the only inspired teachers of
the faith ? Would he not naturally say. Have the Apostles left
any written record of the faith behind them ? Yes, would be
the reply, Here is a large and full record of the faith, acknowl-
edged, with hardly an exception worth naming, as authoritative,
on all sides. What will a wise man, individually responsible
to God for embracing the tru^ faith, do under such circum-
stances! Will he not take those Scriptures into his hands, and
by a diligent perusal of them, united with prayer for the promised
guidance of that Divine Spirit that indited them, judge by them
what is the true faith, and which the true followers of Christ T

As time passed on, such a course would be still more necessary ;
for as we see, from the passages already adduced under the for-
mer head, the supporters oi false doctrine within the catholic
church progressed with the advance of ti^ie in boldness and in
numbers. ** I wish,'* says Origen, ** that those only who are
without the church were deceived ; it would be easy to avoid
the seduction. But ' now they who profess to belong to the
church are deceived and misled, even on the necessary points,
as their dissension is a witness; since even those who are
within the church are misled."*

Nay, we require, surely, no further testimony than the passa-
ges adduced from Origen himself and others, in a former part of
this chapter, to show that errors on the most important points
might be openly taught and promulgated by those who were all
their lives in the communion of the catholic church, and were
even followed, admired, and honoured members of it ; of which
Qrigen is a most remarkable and undeniable instance; whose
writings were not condemned by^ the church till long after bis
death.

Were it necessary, we might point out many other instances
of erroneous statements on important points in the works of
Fathers who died in the communion of the church, and altogether
free, as far as we know, from ecclesiastical censure ; but the task

1 8«e ptgt 386 above.

342 PATRI8T1CAL TBAOITION

is both UDgratefui and uoneceseary. Tbe (act that there are
8uch statements is undeniable. Tbe Fatbere^ therefore, may
have erred on vital points, while, nevertheless, they remained in
the communion of the church ; and were not, as far as we know,
publicly censured for want of orthodoxy. From whatever cause
this might be, whether from their happening to be screened by
circumstances, or from the elevated position tbey held in the
church, or from the lack of any constituted authority to take
cognizance of (he nnitter, or from their condemnation not having
come down to us, the fact is indisputable.

Now this appears to me to be fatal to tbe system of our oppo-
nents; for it is a necessary hypothesis for the support of their
scheme, that had there been unorthodox notions in the writings
of any Fathers in the communion of the catholic church, there
would have been a condemnation of them by tbe church remain-
ing to us. For this i$ the only reason for limiting ourselves to
those of the catholic church, namely, the supposition that in their

Erofessed union with that church, we have a check against their
eing supporters of error, under the idea that the church would
have rejected them, or condemned their errors, had they delivered
unorthodox doctrine ; and such a, check, to a certain extent, we
no doubt have; but, as might be expected, it is an insufficient

one.

To such instances of error in the Fathers, however, our oppo-
nents immediately reply with an answer, which, to those who are
willing to be deceived by fine words, looks very plausible ; name-
ly, that they " have no weight at all, one way or other, in the
argument from catholic tradition" (Newman, p. 66.) Which
would be very true, if we had really catholic testimony for our
** catholic tradition ;" but when we are sent to some hall a dozen
or dozen authors as the ground for claiming ^' catholic tradition/'
then the erroneous statements of individuals of great name are
comparatively of great weight in the account, and seem to me
to afford a strong argument that there was no catholic tradition
in such matters, none, that is, that pervaded and was received
generally throughout the whole catholic church.

Here, however, I would observe, that I do not notice these
errors (as some have done) as if they lessened the authority of
" catholic consent," even supposing it to exist on any point; for,
on the contrary, they would appear to me rather to strengthen
it ; for patristical consent, under such circumstances, would be a
still stronger evidence of the truth of what the Fathers didpve
a consentient testimony to, than if they had been more free from
such imperfections, fiut they incontrovertibly show that there
was not that consent in the catholic church, on all the important
doctrines of the faith, which our opponents maintain there was,

MO vmvM tnwimMAVT* 943

and the suppoeitioo of which is esBentiai to their sjstem. The
errors that we have shown to have b^n openly maintained by
those who were in the communion of the church, without, as far
as we know, their incurring ecclesiastical censure, clearly prove
that the catholic church was taot that excludvely orthodox and
united body our opponents suppose it to have been, and that it is
vain to Iook for " catholic consent'*

Moreover, where is our " catholic tradition** for any poipt,^en
in the authors that remain to us^ for erroneous statements are
to be found in one or other of them upon almost all points 7

How, indeed, was it to be expected that a vast number of dis-
tinct and independent communities far distant from one another,
having no common tribunal or court of appeal, and maintaining
but an occasional, and precarious, and slight communion with each
other by the epistolary intercourse of their prelates, should re-
main for two or three centuries precisely of one mind in all th^
important points of the faith ; and still more, all the teachers of
all those various communities t Were there none to follow the
example of Sardis and Laodicea ? And when corruptions had
been introduced, where was the tribunal competent infallibly to
decide which had retained, and which had corrupted, the true
faith? Where for instance was the tribunal competent to cut
off the churches of Sardis, or Laodicea, or others similarly cor-
rupted, from the catholic church,x>r that elver attempted to make
such a separation ? As far as appears, there was nothing of the
kind ever set up in the primitive church.

Nay, let us once again advert to the case of our own church,
and I would ask whether even here, with that full and explicit
confession of faith to be found in her articles, the writings and
teaching of all those who have died in her cominunion without
any public censure, have been in all cases strictly orthodox even
in fundamental points. It would be invidious to allude to indi-
viduals. I will therefore leave the inquiry in this general form.
But can there be a doubt as to the answer which must be given
in this or any similar case of a regularly constituted church having
a public confession of faith by which all her members profess to
abide ? How much less, then, could consent be expected where
there was no such confession of faith ?

The fact is, as any one who will take the trouble impartially
to study the \<rorks of the Fathers themselves, will at once see,
there is the ereaiest possible diversity of sentiment among them
even on the nighest points, as in the former part of this chapter
we have attempted to prove.

nntmcAL ntxDvnvs

BKCTIOM X, — KIFLT TO OUECTIONB, AND CONCLnDlITC BEMASU.

I now proceed, in the last place^ to reply to the objectioni that
have been ur^ed against the views we advocati:.

One of these baa been already disposed of in the former part
of this chapter. It has been objected that the position we main-
tain is just that of all the anlient heretics, who always declined
the testimony of tradition. I have already abundantly shown'
that this is altogether a mistake, and that the heretics were in
thehabit of appealing to the testimonies of preceding Fathers, and
calling their doctrines the doctrines of the catholic church, a>
much as the orthodox.
But it may be said, —

If Scripture Is our only divine informant, then if there had
been no Scriptures we should have had no divine informant —
But would it not have been the duty of men to believe the tra-
s of religion they would have possessed, and may
that comes to us now under the name of " tradi*
aim upon our belief?
God has not so left ua, and therefore we cannot
:h a supposition, because the only ground for sup-
vould Dave been necessary to consider those tra-
es a divine informant, arises from the hypothesis
there would have been no divine informant. Now
it may be that God has gli^n us the Scripture for the very rea-
son, that wittiout it tradition would not have preserved the truth
and been a divine informant.

It is further objected,' however, —

That for more than two thousand years from the creation men
were actually left to " tradition."

A more unfortunate argument never was ui^ed, for, in the
first place, the example stiows how utterly insufficient such a
mode of transmitting truth is, when it failed even to perpetuate
the knowledge of the one true God, the whole world having soon
lapsed into polytheism and idolatry; and the few cases of true
believers that are left on record, oeing such as were favoured
with some peculiar and extraordinary divine manifestations.

Moreover, if" tradition" was sufficient, why was the law given
through Moses so carefully {vritten 1

Nor were men left previously to depend upon such a broken
reed as " tradition." They had conscience and the light of na-
ture to direct them ; insufficient guides doubtless to lead men to

NO DIVIirX INPOSMAIfT.^ 84$

the knowledge of more than a few of the most elementair prin-
ciples of religion^ but nevertheless, all for the possession oi which
they are called to account in Scripture ; for when the Apostle
rebukes the heathen world for their iniquities, he does so, not be-
cause they disregarded '< tradition/' but because God's eternal
power and Godhead may be clearly seen and understood from
the works of creation, (Rom. i. 19, 20) and he intimates that the
Gentiles may " do by nature the things contained in the law,"
and be **a law unto themselves," and "show the work of the
law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and
their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one ano-
ther." (Rom. ii* 14, 15.) .

And thus the Fathers themselves tell us, that before the wri-
ting of the law, the bulk of mankind were left to the light of
nature.

Thus Justin Martyr says that those among the heathen, such
as Socrates and Heraclitus, who lived according to the dictates
of reason^ were Christians, though they might be reckoned atlie-
ists;* of the orthodoxy of which passage (as of others quoted
below) I say nothing, but it shows his view on the point now
in question.

Thus also Irenseus identifies the decalogue with '' those natu-
ral precepts which God from the beginning implanted in the
hearts of men."'

And Clement of Alexandria tells us, that " before the coming
of Qhrifit philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteous-
ness ;" that << God is the cause of all good things, of some immedi-
ately, as of the Old and New Testaments of others mediately, as
of philosophy. But perhaps it [i. e. philosophy] was then given
by him to the Greeks immediately, before that the Lord had
called the Greeks, for this, as a schoolmaster, led the Greeks to
Christ, as the law did the Hebrews. Therefore philosophy pre-
pares beforehand, and makes ready the way for him who is per-
fected by Chrbt.''» .

2aK^Anii *xi Hpaxxtnof tuu ei o/aom mnoif. Apol. 1. § 46. p. 71. ed. Bened. (od.
Col. Apol^ ». p. 88.)

> Nam Deat primo qoidem per naturaUc prmcepta, qua ab tmA« infixa detUt

f^ndniku$t 9i6mon9m «m [i. e. J«d»M,}, id est* per I>ecalogiim (qoW si qais non

^eerit, non babet ealQlem,) nihil plot tb eii exqoniYit. Ibbv. Adv. her. iv. 15.

•d. Mais, c %9. ed. Grab.

9 Uv fin wf irpo mt nrw fivpittf vNtpw&fu tit iltuuo^fntn "Bxt^^tv «Ne}4MtM #ixo0VfM

. « . . ir«mfr ptm ytpmnuftm wMMm • Omt «xaa ^rm fttn,tuvmitfjf)^»f*mt^, mem

/•x«i fTfvi^mtfMam tmUM^^o i/o9« *nm^ vrpn » vw Yiv^ tutxtg^ummrmK BxxMHLt. wtrnt-
/tsyttyuy^MU mru^ '&}Miwwmittf»H^ovthAptt49VtmXfi9*i^. II^em^twiMMfW
T«eiyf i fA«r«#M, iTf^^fm^a^ vw Ctn Xfirrt* timmc^m». Cm. Aux. Stvmi.
lib. i. p. 831. ed. Potter (al. p. 283.)

346 PATHISTICAL TRADITtOir

Thufe Terttiliian says, th^t •* before the law was writtett by
JMoses, the Fathers observed that which nature taught them/*
and that by this Noah and others were considered righteous.*

Eusebius, that " before the written laws of Moses, many of the
earlier Fathers were adorned with the virtue of piety, through
the right use of their reason."*

Theodoret, ** that the Abrahanriic race received the divine law,
and enjoyed the blessing of prophecy, but the Governor of the
universe led the other nations to piety through nature and crea-
tion,'^*

Now whatever may be thought of these passages in other re-
spects, it is at least clear from them that their authors did not hold
that those who preceded Moses were left to the guidance of " tra-
dition^^ but to that of reason and conscience.

The traditionary notices they might possess on the subject of
religion had not, as traditions^ any definitive claim upon their
belief. They were not binding upon the conscience, on the ground
of their having been transmitted to them by their ancestors.
The uncertainty of the mode of conveyance made it necessary
for them to test those notices by some independent standard of
judgment. And that standard was .the light of nature and the
works of creation.

Look at the present state of the heathen world. There are
evidently some remains of primitive tradition among them. But
ha vie they anyt^iing which can be called the word of God, any
Divine riile of faith ? Are they bound to receive the traditionary
notices of religion that have come down to them from their ances^
tors ? Or rather, are they not bound, strictly speaking, to exer-
cise the light of their natural reason and conscience, and reject
those traditions, aS opposed to the voice of conscience and the
testimony of creation?

Such, also, had we been left to "tradition," would have been
the case with us. There would have been a vast number of
traditionary doctrines, some of them having their origin in
Divine revelation, though perhaps much corrupted from their
original purity, and the greater number probably having their
origin altogether in the dreams of the human imagination, and

i " ' . -■

I Ante legem ]if ojn icripUm, qM9 nttuimliler intelUgebatar el a PaUib«» cm
todiebatar. Nam unde ^oe jiistua inventoa, al. doa illam nataraUi Ugia joatttta
precedebat? unde Abraham amicua Dei deputatua, ai non de aqottaie et jttatilia
legia nataralia } dec Adv. iud. a. 8. p^ 184. ed. 1664.

tu¥n tutfwucfAM^n^Mf. 'PnBpar. Evang. Ub. irii« c. 7. p. 306.

* To |ui» y*fi AQpofAULM ymoi, juu f^m 6fiov tTif'ATOy jmi nyoftrawf lUnrXMVtfi x^f^^"
*rmhy% «xx« <6ir» /Mt tik fMvac ntu nut- nntrmt vroi)ry4rirpot BtoviAtmi *tm ixm i^itpU'
4?aM^ ToBOPOBiT. Qtmc tfibdt. onrtt* Biapot. I. priipt fin. Op. «d. MivIm,
torn. iv. p. 735. «

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. ' 347

all of them coming dowD to us clouded with the doubt and un*
certainty inseparable from the mode of conveyance by which
they were transmitted ; and we should have been left to the
guidance of our natural reason and conscience* to find our way
among them as well as we could.

Now I need hardly remind the reader, that though the practi-
cal truths of Christianity are such as might be admitted to carry
evidence with them of their divine origin, many of the doctrines
of the Christian faith are not such as the natural reason and con-
science would thus recc^nize as divine. We need very direct
proof of their revelation to convince us of their truth. Such
proof we cannot have in '* tradition," and therefore it pleased
God to commit them to writing, that we might have a sure testi-
mony to the truth in all ages to the end of the world.

In that which *' tradition'' delivers, the uncertainty of the
mode of conveyance makes it necessary for reason to judge
t>f the nature of the doctrine delivered. In that which Scrip-
ture delivers, our reason judges not of the doctrine delivered^
but only of the grounds for believing Scripture to be the word of
<jod ; and having ascertained Scripture to be the word of God,
reason and conscience have only to accept the revelation there
made with an humble and implicit faith.

We do not, then, think it necessary to deny, that '* tradition"
might hand down to us a report of some truths that have a di-
vine origin ; but we maintain, that coming from such a source
such truths have not in themselves a claim to our belief. They
must be judged by reason and conscience, and in our case by the
light of tnat which we know to be a divine revelation ; and what-
ever may be our individual feeling respecting them, never be laid
down as part of the authoritative rule of faith for mankind in
general.

Nor is it any argument against this that some of the early Chris-
tians believed, upon the testimony of those who gave only an oral
report of the gospel. For it will be allowed on all hands that
such oral report could not in itself have any authoritative claim
upon the faith of the hearers^ But it was generally accompa-
nied in those times with some external signs, manifesting its divine
nature, or otherwise it was still more cnectually impressed upon
the heart by the Spirit of God, through the ministrations of those
who preached with the Holv Ghost sent down from heaven, ren-
dering the more abundant testimony we possess to its divine ori-
gin unnecessary.

F^astly^as our opponents think so much of the authority of the
Fathers, we may add that Chrisostom expressly refers the knowl-
edge of the truths of religion enjoyed by the patriarchs before
Moses to the revelations made directly to them.

348 PATRISTICAL TKADITIOK

" We ought not," he says, " to have needed the aid of writings,
but to have lived so purely, that the grace of the Spirit might
have supplied to our souls the place of books; and as these are
inscribed with ipk» so our souls by the Spirit. But since we have
driven away this grace, let us set sail afresh upon that second
course of navigation that is open to us. For that the former
was better, God hath manifested, both by what he hath said and
by what he hath done. For to Noah and Abraham, and their
descendants, and to Job and Moses, he did not speak through
writings^ but he himself addressed them, finding their n)ind to
be pure. But when the whole nation of the Hebrews fell into
the depth of iniquity, then it was necessary that there should be
for the Aiture writings and tables, and the remembrance of things
be preserved through these. And this happened, we may ob-
serve, not only with the saints of the Old Testament, but also
with those of the New, For God did not give any writing to the
Apostles,, but instead of writings he promised that he would give
them the grace of the Spirit. For ' he,' saith he, * shall bring all
things to your remembrance.' .... But when, in process of
time, they erred, some on account of doctrines, others m life and
manners, [which shows how soon Chrysostom believed such errors
to have prevailed] there was again need of writings to preserve
a remembrance of the truth.'.*

Theophylact, as usual, follows with precisely the same remark.

Again, it is objected, — •

That the promises of Christ ensure to the Church Catholic free-
dom from error in fundamental points, and therefore that in such
points at least the testimony of that church must be equivalent
to a divine informant

But, as we have already seen,* Mr. Newman himself admits
that all the promises of Christ to the Church would be fulfilled
by the existence of a succession of individuals in the church
holding the true faith. The promises of Christ, therefore, ensure

1 BiTii /uflf ijUAC fUf^fl JWtf^dU inc earo rm yp^tfAfMrm SmBuac' axx' ovrts Bicf vrApt^i^-Beu jtau
BafOff m rop TlmffAATot rm X*^ '^'^' &i&ktm ywa^M r*tt N.ufnAdC/c 4^;^eU(, jtoi nsAtonf

«rccvT»r S'tutfouTAfA^A TMv X*^^> ^*P*f "^"^ *^^^ i'wnp^f otnrtiTUfAibA irxouv. E^ii ott to
Tfvnfiot atfAWvf WTt KSiitm tun, x±i h* m trotno-Wt i^xa»rtf o e«oc. Keu yAp rm Nm keu
rm AAp0MfA JMU TMryovMC <reicfMivov« xMvulm^^ mu <rai Mimtm itw^ ypAfAfAdtm9\ti$-
xry§TOt AXX* «vToc ^i Uurrw* lutBAaof tufitrxm dvrm fnf J'MnuMf. Emt^ h «c murtf mt
MLMMJt wffnvt Toy urtAfAm* dorAt rm EB^m o ^ftoc, auai^jMUMC xurot yfAfA(AAftA tuu
irxiuoc, iMi 0 itA tovtanr umfJLfnrtc. Ktu Tot/ro, omk «nr tw v t* ir«x«i« Aymty okKA %au
m rut ft T9 Ktun TufjiQta i^oi tic <tv- Ov^t yA^ *roit taroa^oK^tc tftum vt y^Ar^n o Smr
«txx' «rri ypAfAfAAfrm tuv tov Unuua/r^c vnyyuXA/n ^etffw X^'^- l^'^wvor >Af (Imac «^a-
M0th yt9^ irA9^A. . . . Btm/ii JimhXeu *rou XP^rw «^iW« tfvxftxtfy, oi fji9t IrytAdtnm
iMiM*, «« /fl imm H*t rf9trm, liWiri fr^iJt mt «ro *rm yfdfA/uurm vfn^cmf. ChryM^
tQiD* in MaUh. bom. 1. itUt. tQin.,viK pp« 1, 3.
i dee pp. 49 aai 143, ^. above.

NO NVnfB INFOaiCAlVT. 849

only the existence of a body of true worshippers in all ages.
Now certainly the testimony of this select body might be consid-
ered a sure witness of the truth. But how are we to obtain it?
To gather the sufirages of all Christians is an impoeaibility. To
select those by whose judgment we will abide is to constitute our**
selves the judges and nmke any appeal to others a mere self-de-
ception. On this pointy however^ we have already spoken in a
former page.^

Further, it is objected that *' tradition" is like that unwritten
l|iw of custom^ which is admitted by all states as binding.

Mr. Newman, speaking of the theory of the Romanists on the
subject of tradition (and the theory^ as we have shown, both he
himself and Dr. Pusey accept) observes, — " By tradition they
mean the whole system of faith and ordinances which they have
received from the generation before them, and that generation
again from th^ veneration before itself. And in this sense^ un-
doubtedlyt we all go by tradition in matters of the world . • • •
At this very time, great part of the law of the land is adminis-
tered under the sanction of such a tradition ; it is not contained
in any formal or authoritative code, it depends on custom or pre-
cedent • • • . When the Roomnists say they adhere to tradition,
they mean that they believe and act as Christians have always
believed and acted; they go by the custom^ as judges and juries
do." And this custom* '^ when traced baeki. Aa« no beginning
short of the Apostles qf Christy and is in consequence of divine^
not of hunap authorityij b true and intrinsically binding, as
well as expedient. If we ask, why it is that these professed tra-
ditions w;ere not reduced to writing, it is answered tnat the Chris-
tian doctrine, as it has proceeded from the mouth of the Apos-
tles, is too varied and too minute in its details to allow qf
t/ .... If, again, it be objected that this notion of an unwrit-
ten transmission of th^ truth being supposed, there is nothing to
show that the Taith of (o-ilay was the faith of yesterday, notUng
to connect this age and the Apostolic, they maintain, on the con-
trary, that over and above the corroborative, though indirect,
testimooy of ecclesiastical writers, no error could have arisen in
the church, without its being protested against, and put down on
this [? its] first appearance; that from all parts of the church a
cry would tmve been raisfsd against the novelty, and a declara-
tion put forth, as M'e know was the practice of the early church,,
denouncing it."'

Thus di^. Mr. Na;9rman countenance the dehiaive st«iteiBe&t$
by which B^me has gained overdo many to her iu>mmiiniiiD» that

1 See pp. 49 ai^d 143 tboTe.
« Newman, pp. 88 — 40.

VOL. I. U Q

850 PATIItmCAX. MADiriOK

would represent the catholic church as havin;; always beed a
compact) united body, keeping her communion free from the taint
of heresy, and handing down, from age to age, with scrupulous
fidelity, a full and complete code of doctrine and rites, delivered
to her by the Apostles, — a representation as far as possible fronn
the truth, and which it is difficult to conceire how any one that
has looked with an impartial eye into the records of the church
can for a moment entertain. It is a notion which even the wri-
tings of the third century repudiate.

Mr. Keble follows in the same pathi and contends, that on
principles exactly analagous to those on which certain customs
are received as part of the common law, certain ** church prac-
tices and rules" '* ought, apart from all Scripture evidence^ to
be received as traditionary, or common laws eccleiiastical ;" ad-
ding, that <^ they who contend that the very notion of such tra-*
dition is a mere dream and extravagance • • • . must, if they
would be consistent^ deny the validity of the most important por«
tion of the laws of this and of most other old countries."^

The argument is, as usual, supplied by Bellarmine.'

These remarks of Mr. Keble I must confess myself unable to
understand ; for why it should follow that because I deny that
we have sufficient evidence of any oral traditions of the Apos-
tles, and consequently the binding nature of anything which may
profess to be derived from them, thereffore, to be consistent, I
must deny the validity of the common law of this country, I can-
not comprehend. 1 can only say, that when Mi*. Keble has
traced up any custom to the Apostles with the same certainty as
would be required in tracing up a custom beyond the period of
legal memory, to make it binding in a court of common law, I
shall be quite prepared to receive it as Apostolical.

Be it observed, also, that this argument affects merely the cus-
toms, and not the doctrines of the churchy notwithstanding Mr.
Newman's attempt, in the extract given above, to make it in-
clude the latter as well as the former.

But, after all, where is the similarity of the two caseSf or what
does the argument prove? Customs that have prevailed for se-
veral centuries are received by most states as an unwritten law;
so that if a custom can be clearly traced up beyond a certain
period, it is ordained that, however it may have arisen, it shall
be considered binding. But as it respects the church, there is no
tribunal or government authorised to enact such an ordinance ;
and if there were, it is obvious that the two cases are wholly
ififierent, because the rites of the church are connected altogeth-
er with the worship of God, for the regulation of whicby customs^

no DiTuni nfFoiMAKT* 351

caraaUjr or volantariiy iotrodaced, are a most insufiBcient guide.
IdoreoYer, soch rites only are biDding upon the whole church,
as were laid down for its observance by our Lord and his Apos-
tles.

TruOi it may be, and no doubt is, necessary for the church to
have rules and customs beyond what are laid down in the Scrip-
tures, and it is wise to innovate as little as possible in such mat-
ters ; and the duty incumbent upon her members of observing
such rules, as long as they are not inconsistent with the declara-
tions of Scripture or their duty to God, is not here disputed. —
But the question is, whether such rules and customs are to be
enforced as having been ordained by the Apostles, for which the
evidence we have for that professed apostolical sanction is wholly
insufficient. Trace them to the Apostles with the same certain-
ty that customs are traced beyond the period of legal memory
before they are allowed to have the force of law, and we will at
once admit them to have apostolical authority.

Lastly, a very favourite argument with our opponents, as with
the Romanists, is, that as we are satis&ed to take the book of
the Scriptures from the early church, so we cannot reasonably
object to take the meaning of those Scriptures from her, for that
if we can trust the Fathers in the one case, so can we in the
other.

There is a very true remark in one of the "Tracts," that
'< any thing has been ventured and believed in the heat of con-
troversy, and the ultimate appeal is to the common sense of
mankind*^ (Tr. 85. p. 79.) To that "common sense" I leave
the above argument.

Let*me, however, give an illustration of it. Mr. Newman,
we will suppose, delivers a Treatise on Justification, rather ob-
scurely penned, (fotr so must we suppose to preserve the similari-
ty of the two cases in Mr. Newman's view of the matter,) to a
brother clergyman, to whom also he delivers orally an expla-
nation of its meaning. The book travelling through many hands,
accompanied in each transfer with an attempted repetition of
the oral comment, comes at last into my hands, and the deliver-
er gives me also the oral comment. Now I shall get the book
safe enough, but shall I be stire to get the explanation safe ? If,
in controverting the book, I should remark that this or that pas-
sage, though obscure as it stands in the book, certainly has such
a meaning, because Mr. Newman in his oral comment, which
came to me through only a dozen successive deliveries, declared
that such was its meaning, might not an opponent reasonably
say, My friend, you ought not to be so positive in the matter, for
recollect how liable an oral communication is to alteration in
passing through so many hands, and would not the rebuke be a

ft52 TATMVnWMSk TRADVliam

very just one? Nay^wbo koows not how Ihible a sermon or
speech is to be mkreported even in its first transit, so that we
hold any man to be unjnst who condemns another upon such
evidence.

And mark whither such a principle would lead us* We re-
ceive the bck>ks of the Old Testament from the Jews. There-
fore, according to this argument, we are bound to receive the
meaning of them from the Jews. Therefore we are bound to
reject the New Testament and Christianity alt(^ether.

" We can never be assured," says our learned Henry Wharton
(in his Preface to an old treatise by Bishop Peacock qn ^ Scrip-'
ture the rule of faith," republished by him in the great Popish
Controversy at the end of the I7th century,) ^' that any articles
were invariably and entirely without any addition or diminution
conveyed down to us by tradition ; since it hath been in all times^
and ages observed, that matters o( fact, much more qf beli^,
not immediately committed to writipg presently degenerated into
fables, and were corrupted by the capricious malice or ignorance
of men. Nothing can exempt the tradition of the Christian re-
ligion from this fate, at least from our reasonable suspicions of it,
but the infallibility of that society of men which conveys down
this tradition. But the latter can never be known till this cer-
tainty of tradition be first cleared and presupposed, since the be-
lief of this supposed infallibility must ^t last be resolved into the
sole truth and certainty of tradition. In the next place, tradi-
tion cannot certainly and invariably propose the belief of Chris-
tianity to all private persons. For fron^ whence shall this tra-
dition be received ? From a Pope, or a Council, or both> or
from none of these, but only the Universal Church ? In every
one of these ca^e« infinite difficulties wilf occur, which will singly
appear insuperable. As, Who is a true Pope, What bis inten-
tions in defining were, Whether he acted canonicaily. In what
sense he hath defined. What Councils, whether (Ecumenical,
Patriarchal, or Provincial, may be securely trusted? What
are the necessary conditions and qualifications of a general
Council? Whether all these conditions were ever observed
in any Council? What these Councils are, what they have
defined, what is the true ^ense and intention 6f their definitions ?
From whom must we learn the beH^ qf the Universal
Churchy if Popes and Councils be rejected ? From cUl Chris- ^
tiansy or only from the clergy ? tf from the latter^ whether
the assent of every member qf the clergy be required? If
noty how great a part may safely dissent from the rest?
From whom the opinion of the major part is to be received?
Whether from the writings of doctors or the teaching qf liv-
ing pastors ? If from the lattery whether it be sufficient to

XO Hmm INFOBMAMT. 353

heat one or a few Parish Priests^ or allf or at least the
maior number j are personally to he consulted 9 All these
difficulties may be branched ottt into many more, and others no
less insuperable be found out ; which will render the proposal of
religion by way of tradition, if not utterly impracticable^ at least
infinitely unsafe. Thirdly, tradition 19 so far from being inde-
pendent on other articles of the Christian faith, that the belUf
of all other articles must be presupposed to it^ For since all
sects propose different traditions, and the truth of none of them
is self-evidenty it must first be known which is the true church
before it can be determined which is the true tradition* Now,
the knowledge of the true church can be obtained only two ways,
either from the truth of her doctrines, or from the external notes
of the true church. If the first way, then it must first be known
what are the true and genuine doctrines of Christianity, the sted*
fast belief of which causeth this society to become the true
churctk But if the true church be known only from some ex-
ternal notes, these notes are either taught by Scripture, or found
out by the light of reason. If taught by Scripture, then the^
knowledge of the Divine authority of Scripture is antecedent to
the knowledge of the true church, and consequently independent
on it For otherwise Scripture will be believed for the authori-
ty of the church, and the church for the authority of Scripture ;
which is a manifest circle. .... Lastly, if the notes of the
church may be found out by natural reason^ then to pass by the
infinite contradictions which would arise from such a proposition,
these notes can be no other than antiquity, universality, perpetui-
ty, and such like ; every one of which doth some way or other
presuppose the knowledge of the true doctrines of Christiani*
ty^ as well as those of the present church. For the end of these
notes is to compare the former with the latter, and consequently
both of them must be first known."^

Such is the testimony of one of our most learned divines. It
would be easy to multiply such testimonies, and considering the
confident claims made by our opponents to the suffrage of all our
great divines in their favour, and which have justly contributed
more than anything else to the support of their cause, such testi-
monies are of considerable importance. But as a future chapter
will be set apart for them, I will here only add one more, namely
that of Placette in his " Incurable scepticism of the Church of
Rome," as translated and published by our learned ^Arch-
bishop Tenison. I have already quoted more than once from

1 Pref. to **A Treatise proving Scriptare to be the role of ftith, writ by Regi-
nald Peacock. BUhap of Chicheeter, before the Reformatioa, about the yeer
1460.*' Lood. 1688. 4to. .

00*

364 PATBmpreA.L tbahitioII

this treatiie, Ymt there are some valuable renmrira on the DOtioo
of grounding our faith pu the '* consent of doctors," of which I will
here present the reader with the substance ; and in which, we
may observe, he distinctly maintains that no such consent has
been obtainable in any age of the Church. •

'*That it cannot be learned from the consent of doctors what
is to be believed,'* is clear, he says, ** 1. Because it doth not ap-
pear who those doctors are. 2. Because those doctors whosoever
they are do not always agree ... It doth not appear who are
those doctors whose consent is required [that is, as he explains,
y^hether they are bishopsonly or all the clergy] . . • But neither
would that suffice, if it were of faith. Somewhat else would be
yet necessary, viz. to know certainly whether to give assent to
the doctrine of these pastors and doctors, whosoever they be, it
be required that all should consent in their doctrine eve^ one of
them, which they call all mathematically ; or whether the con-
sent of all morally f that is almost all will suffice: again, who
they are exactly that may be called all morally, and how great
a part of the whole may dissent without prejudicing the infalli-
bility of the rest, whether the third, or the fourth, or the tenth,
or the hundredth, dsc. who shall define this ? If all mathemati-
cally must consent, God would have appointed a rule which
never existed ; for so absolute a consent never was among the
governors of the church. But he which shall say, it sufficetfa
that almost all consent, ought not only to affirm but also to prove
what he says. But how shall so obscure a thing be proved t or
what certainty can be had in it? Yet grant it can be had, it is
still to be defined when almost all can be said to have consent^
ed; for that hath a certain latitude wherein some men will think
that number to be included which others hold excluded.

But not to seem too scrupulous, let our adversaries define this
as they please, and almost all be accounted to have consented
when only a tenth, twelfth, or twentieth part shall dissent. Let
all this be as certain, as it is indeed doubtful and uncertain. I
ask, whether that consent which it shall have pleased our adver-
saries to define necessary is always to be had 7 If any one think
so, he must be a stranger to all ecclesiastical history, and never
have heard of the prevailing heresies of Anus, Nestorius, and
£utyches, not to mention others. But you will say, they were
heretics, whereas we require only the consent of catholics. Right ;
but it did not sensibly appear they were heretics ; rather thai
was then the question^ who were heretics and who orthodox.
For the Arians, Nestorians, and Eutycbians took to themselves
the name of catholics^ and branded the rest with the imputation
of heresy. Now if this question, which was certainly a mat'
ter o/jaithf was to be determined only from the consent of

HO mmm nfFoxKAirr. W6

dmt(n%, it could net)er have been deUrmined to the world^s
endf since that consent was never to be found. Bot to deal
liberally with our adversaries, hare not tboee ofteD diasented
wb(Mn tbeiBselves acknowledge catiM>lic I In the second and third
age the Asiatics dissented from the Europeans about the celebra-
tion of Easter. In the third age, all the Africans, and many of
the Asiatics, from the rest about the rebaptization of heretics.
In the fourth age, the followers of Theophilus, Epipfaanius, and
St Hlerome from the favourers of Origen about his condemna-
tion,'* &c. &c. ^^ That the consent of doctors, even when It can be
had, is more difficult to be known than that we can by the help
of it attain to the knowledge of the truth. . . • This consent, {f
it couid be had, is not so manifest and obvious as a rule of faith
ought necessarily to be, which by the confession of all must be
clear, evident, and easy to be applied. This Duvall ass^s for
^ an essential condition of a rule of faith,' and acknowledgeth that
* if a rule obscurely proposeth the mysteries of iaith it would
thereby become no rule.' And for this reason our adversaries so
much exaggerate the obscurity of Scripture that they may there-
by show it could not be given by God for a rule of faith. To
which end Or, a Valentia layeth down this axiom, which he
afterwards applieth to the Scripture, ' The sentence of that au-
thority which is to judge of all matters of faith ought to be mani-
fest, that it may be easily understood by all the faithful. For if
that authority doth not teach perspicuously and plainly, it will be
of no use to that end.' So he, and with him many others. If,
therefore, I shall show that the consent of pastors about matters
of belief is so obscure and difficult to be known that even the
moat learned, much more illiterate, men cannot avoid error in
searching it out, I shall thereby prove that it could not be given
to us by God as a common rule of things to be believed* This
obscurity and difficulty ariseth from three causes. The first is
the amplitude of the church diffused throughout the whole world,
which permits not the faith of all pastors to be known unless we
travel through all those regions wherein they are dispersed. . •
• . The second reason of the difficulty of knowing the common
consent of other doctors, is the obscure knowledge which is in the
church of some points concerning which no disputation hath been
yet raised. For nothing is more true than that opinions are illus-
trated by controversies. .... We proceed to the third reason,
which consisteth in this, Thatsome opinions are often divulged
in the church as revealed by God and approved by the church
and are everywhere taught, which at last are found out and
known to be false j*^ &c. " That it doth not suffice, it be known
that anything is taught unanimously by the governors of the
church, unless it appear that it is taught to be of faith ; but that

mC FATXItnOAL TSADinOX

i thk is most uncertaia . . . Not whatsoever tbey uoaDtoioiisljr
affirm is to be received as the revelation of God, and the doctrine
of the church, but only what they unanimously maintained to be
of faith. This Canua and BeUarmine plainly insinuate . • . «
Before we believe therefore the doctrine of the (xovernors of the
churchy we must consider how they teach it, whether as of feith ;
if not, we must suspendour assent Now bishops, parsons and
preachers are wont to teach what seems true to them and agree-
ing with divine revelation ; but very rarely to admonish whether
what they teach be of faith or a consequent of faith, whether ex-
pressly revealed or coherent to things revealed. This Hoiden
acknowledgeth, < We never heard,' saith he, ' that the church in
delivering the Christian doctrine exhibited or composed a Cata-
logue of revealed articles and divine institutions, whereby those
articles.of divine faith might be separately and distinctly known
from all others, which are either of ecclesiastical institution, or
not immediately founded upon divine revelation, but taught
<tU together confusedly and indistinctly.^ Hence even those
divines who agree in the truth of any article often difier in juic-
ing whether it be of faith."*

These remarks, though made with a more especial reference
apparently to the particular age of the church in which the in-
quirer may live, are yet more forcible with regard to the system
of our opponents, for the difficulties here mentioned as operating
against the possibility of obtaining consent of doctors are such
as would be greater in the latter than in the former case. And
we may toy the same for the remarks which follow these against
the possibility of finding any sure ground for our faith in the con-
sent of the universal church, including clergy and laity, respect-
ing which he proceeds to prove (as quoted in a former page)
*^ that there is nothing whereon the faith of all private Christians
can less rely ; 1. Because it doth not appear what is that uni-
versal church whose faith is to be the rule of ours. 2. Because
it is not known what is the faith of that church. 3. Because it
is not manifest, whether the faith of any church assignable be
true,"* on each of which points he adds some valuable remarks
which I would commend to the notice of the reader.'

It is worth remarking that the scheme of our opponents has
been a favourite notion with some of the irenical writers, who,
feeling the want of some court of appeal by which the differen-
ces dividing the several parties of the Christian world from one
another could be decided, have fancied like the Tractators that
they could find such an arbitrator in the consent of the Fathers

1 8«6 ee. 30, SI, 22. > See c, 24.

3 Sec ec 24—27.

KO Divnra ZNItlBMAlIT* 907

of the first few centuries. Such seems to have been the nolioD
of the Romnnist Cassander, who in his irenical ezpositioD of the
articles of the faith professes to have scrupulously followed that
consent as his guide.^ Such also was the view expressly advo-
cated by the Lutheran George Calixtus and others in the 17th
century, who entertained the hope of thereby eflectinc a recon-
ciliation between the Romanists and Protestants, and bringing
the whole church to a state of peace and amity,' a consumma-
tion worthy of any labours and eflbrts for its accomplishment,
but little likely to be brought about by such means, or indeed by
any human means. But ** consent of Fathers" is indeed a bro-
ken reed to depend upon for such a purpose.

I conclude with one remark, viz., That my object in this chap-
ter has not been to withdraw from the Fathers that respect that
is due to many of them, but to show that the notion put forward
by our opponents respecting their claim to our belief, as an au-
thority binding upon the conscience is utterly without foundation.
In doin^ this, it has been impossible to avoid an exposure of their
mistakes and infirmities, which one would willingly have been
spared the necessity of making. If a near and dear relative were
to be set up by a party in the Christian church as an infallible
expositor of the Divine word, having authority over the con-
sciences of men, and a right to our implicit yatVA in his decisions,
the nearness of the relationship would doubtless render the task
of exposing the absurdity of such a notion, one which we could
not undertake without considerable pain. Infinitely rather would
we have had the task of commending his good qualities to others
and exhorting them to follow him, as he followed Christ But
are we, therefore, to acquiesce in the notion, and be parties to
the delusion ?

Very similarly circumstanced are we in the treatment of ouf
present subject. Certain Fathers of the Christian church, viz.,
those whose writings remain to us, have been placed before us by
a party in the church, as the infallible expositors of the Divine
word and doctrine.

Now, of such men it is painful to speak but with regard to
those points in which we may justly respect and follow them. It

1 See Casfandii ConraltaUo prope finem.

> Eo deveneruDt [i. e. G. Calixtat, Conr. HoraeioB et Chriit Dreienis] at
Sciipturs Sacrs oonaensain Eccietie aut Patram. pretehim qoinqae priorum
HBculoram adjangerent, coDtenderentqae in rebut dubiia eonientoini illam cea
veHutifl regulam amplectendam, et qaidqaid isto coDiento Diteretor, hoo aolom
credit u ad salatem esae Dtcesaarium, nee adeo fandamentalea erroree ezprobrari
illia poase, qui crederent qas cum isto Patrum consensu convenireni. Hoc
nimirum iUud ipsum erat, quod Vincentium Lerinentem docaiate antea obaerra*
vifflua, quern et ducem Mc te teqm ipeimet profittbatUur, Budd. Iiag. ad Theo-
log. lib. ii. c. 3. vol. i.. p. 611. See alao Walch. Biblioth. vol it pp. 498 dca.

856 TATMmnCAL TBAMn01l« BTO.

18 an uDgrateftil task to point out their infirmities and dissensions.
But when their claims upon us are magnified to an extent to en*
danger the very foundation upon which our faith is built, how-
ever painful the task may be, it is one of which duty to the
church requires the performance. It is the natural and inevita*
ble consequence of tneir having been exalted by our opponents
to a seat of authority which does not belong to them. As men
of talent and piety, and connected with an early period of the
Christian church, their statements are of considerable value, both
from the character of their authors, and as witnesses of what
was held by some portion of the primitive church in their day.
As witnesses to facts coming under their own observation, their
testimony is invaluable. But to set up their consent as a prac-
tically infallible reporter of the teaching and traditions of the
Apostles, is not only to give their witness an authority over our
consciences to which it has not the shadow of a title, but is, in
fact, to make an appeal to that which neither ever had any ex^
istencet nor if it had, would be ascertainable by us.

859

CHAPTER VL

ON THfi dBdtKDS 019 WttlCH THB DOCTHIKS BESTS THAT SCBlFTtJBB U

THB WOBD OF OOD.

It is a remark cotitinually in the mouth of our opponents
and the Romanists, that if we do not allow the claim tnej set
up for patristical tradition, we take awaj the foundation upon
which rests the doctrine that Scripture is the word of God ; for
that upon the testimony of patristical tradition rests altogether
the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture.

This, I hope to show, is very far from being the case ; and
that however insufficient the testimony of the patristical tradi««
Cion we possess may be, to be a certain witness of the oral teaching
of the Apostles, or to be considered a divine informant, the doc^
trine of the inspiration of Scripture stands unmoved, and on a
firm foundation.

This is the subject of the fifth of the positions we have no-
ticed above (pp. 40, 41) as embodying the doctrine of ou^ oppo-
nents on the question we are discussing, and to it I think it desi-
rable to direct the attention of the reader before we proceed
further.

It will not, I hope, be denied, that a saving belief in Scripture
being the word of God, must be the work of the Spirit or God
upon the heart ; slnd that such a faith might be produced under
that influence, even though the external evidence should be in it-
self weak and insufficient ; and that such a faith is of the highest
and nMMt perfect kind, including all and more than all, which
can be produced by a faith wrought by the force of evidence
alone ; and that any other faith, as long as it stands alone, b^ in
fact, useless.

Here, however, I cannot but remark, that when our opponents
are speakiw on such subjects there is a remarkable and lament*
able lack of reference (to use the mildest phrase) to the neces-
sity of this spiritual influence in the hearts of individuals to pro-
dace true Christian faith.

360 0H0UND8 FOB BILIBF

For, 88 their favourite Archbishop Laud will tell them, it is
"God's Spirit who a/one works faith and belief of the Scriptures
and their diviue authority, as well as other articles ;" our asseut
to this truth is *' by the operation of God's spirit." " The credit
of Scripture to be divine, resolves, finally, into that faith which
we have touching God himself, and in the same order. For as
that, so this hath three main grounds, to which all others are redu-
cible. The first is, the tradition of the church ; and this leads us
to a reverend persuasion of it The second is, the light of na-
ture • • . The third is, tht light of the text itself, in converse
ing whereioith we meet with the Spirit of God, inwardly in--
dining our hearts, and sealing the full assurance of the suf
Jiciency of alf three unto us. Jlnd then^ and not before, we are
certain, that the Scripture is the Word of God, both by divine^
and by infallible proof ;''^ from which latter passage (and many
similar and stronger occur in the context) we may see how far
the Archbishop was from the sentiments of our opponents on the
point which forms the subject of this chapter.

True Christian faith, then, in Scripture being the Word of
God, re8t» ultimately upon a testimony of a much better kind
than the witness of man can supply in any case.

To the miestion, How shall we undoubtedly know the Scriptures
to be the Word of God ? " I answer," says Dr. Chaloner, " that we
may know them to be so, partly by the light of the Word, that is,
the divine notes and characters therein imprinted, and partly by
the enlightening and persuading grace of God's Spirit, enabling
us to see, and moving us to believe what we see."' And he re-
marks,— ^^ The former, (which is the word itself, and the notes
thereof,) cannot be denied by an ingenuous Papist, to be there
found ; for howsoever some of them, by a just judgment , of
God, for being injurious to the Scriptures^ in branding them
with obscurity, imperfection^ fyc», have been so blinded by the
Prince of Darkness, that, (setting aside the judgment of the
Church,) no reason to them hath appeared wherefore jEsop's
Fables should not as well as the Scriptures themselves be
thought canonical, yet others, as Bellarmine, Greg, de Valentia,
Gretser, &c., do knowledge these distinguishing notes to be in
their kind argumentative, and to shine in them, as the excellen-
cy of the doctrine, concord, efficacy, and the like, whereby m»y
be verified of the whole book of God, what the officers sent by
the Pharisees and Priests said of our Saviour, John viL Never
man spake like this man. Nor is the latter (which is the in-
ward testimony of the Spirit) denied, by the leameder sort of

1 Reply to Fisher, ^ 16, eab fin. ed. 1686. p. 74.
> Credo Stnet Ecelee. CeUiol. ed. 1638. p. 104.

THAT SOBIFTUSa IS IIM^XBBD. 801

Papists* to possess another chief place in the discovery of t^e
Scriptures. For although in popular air they seem to vent the
contrary, yet when they are called to give a more sober account
in writing, they utter the same in effect which we do."^

Be the case, then, as it may in this respect, with that which
yatristical tradition delivers to us, Scripture at least has a testi-
mony to the fact of its being a revelation from God, far higher
and more influential than any human witness.

Hence the conclusion of the Tractators, that because there is
(as they suppose) as good testimony in the Fathers for the apos-
tolicity of certain doctrines and rites» as for the apostolical origin
•of the Scriptures, therefore if we believe the latter, we must also
believe the former, is altogether groundless and unwarrantable.
For even supposing that the patristical testimony for the two
should be equally strong (which we altogether deny) this is but
one, and the least persuasive portion of the evidence for the
divine origin of Scripture. The Fathers may bear equally strong
testimony to two things, one of which is true, and the other false;
and of which, therefore, the former only has the witness of the
Spirit in its favour.

And that more influential witness of the Spirit is, we may hope^
enjoyed by every humble-minded inquirer aAer the truth ; for if
they who are evil, as our blessed Lord reminds us, know how to
cive good eifts unto their children, how much more shall our
heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.
Nor will it be any cause for scepticism to a mind thus tauffht, if
it should even happen that the external evidence for the divine
origin of that Word which he venerates as the Word of God, is .
Jess strong than it might be.

How, indeed, is a conviction of the divine origin of Scripture
to be produced otherwise in thousands who are upable to investi-
^Bite the external evidence ? To those who know not what that
evidence is, or ares unable to appreciate it| it cannot be a suffi-
cient foundation for faith.

And shall we deprive Christianity of its greatest glory, as being
the Dispensation of the Spirit, and leave the poor and illiterate
either to grope their way among the records of antiquity to find
a foundation for their faith, or to pin their faith upon the affir-
mation of a few individuals, when Scripture ofiers such gracious
^mises of assistance to the sincere inquirer after the truth 7

To make historical testimony the only ground for belief in this
trutb» is equivalent to admitting that nine-tenths of noankind have
no sure foundation for their belief in it ; for howeveir valid that

1 Credo Ssnel. Vcclat. Cttbol. ed. pp. t8<M.l00.
VOL. L H ■

382 osocrHDi fon muttitr

testimony may be, they neither know what it is, nor are able io
appreciate its value.

Thus much, then, We have felt it necessary to premise on a
point, wbith, alas! the Tractators seem altogether to have over-
looked.

Further, to make the doctrine of the inspii^tion of Scripture
rest upon the bare affirmation of the Fathers, (as our <>pponent9
do,) is equivalent to saying that our belief in the divine origiDof
Scripture is founded on no better evidence than the belief of
Mohammedans in the divine origin of the Koran. For the chief
and vital point in this doctrine is the divine origin of the revela-
tion contamed in Scripture, fdr which the belief of any number
of individuals is no sufficient foundation for faith.

Let us observe that it is not a mere matter of fact which is
here involved, nor what could ever be the object of knowledge
to any individual, but a doctrine which, in all cases, could only
be' an object of faith. Moreover, it is a doctrine standing upon
a foundation pecttliar to itself. For even^ granting that patrisli-
cal tradition might be a safe medium for the conveyance of the
oral teaching of the Apostles, the concession proves nothing for
' the validity of such tradition, as a proof of the inspiration of the
Apostles; for it iff not the assertion of any number of individuals,
or of the Apostles themselves, that can be any sujBcient proof to
us of their inspiratipn.

Nor does it ' help us to take such tradition as indicating that
strict catholic consent which we may suppose ftotn the promises
of Christ to ensure freedom from error, for supposing that we bad
such catholic consent it could prove nothing in the point about
which we are now inquiring, because its supposed authority retts
upon the very truth in question. Catholic consent, to one who is
yet unconvinced of this truth, is but the consent of a certain
number of individuals, and he who says that he believes the di-
vine mission of our Lord and his Apostles on such a ground, does
in effect say that he believes the Christian religion because a
certain number of persons believed it eighteen centuries ago,
which would be as good a reason for believing any form of Pagan-
ism or Mohamrmedism.

This, therefore, is a truth, the proof of which extends over
a much wider field' than patristical traditk>n, and req^iret a
much broader foundation than such tradition can supply it witk.

We may, indeed, be indebted t6 patristical traditioo a» one
and a necessary witness of the foots upon which the external eni^
denee for Scripture being the Word of Ood is founded, imt no
assertions of Christian writers that the New Testament is a di-
vine revelatioo can be qf themselves any more a sufficient proof

THAT 9C WnrBIB I» J|I8FIBBD. 869

that Mit ifl» than the assertioDS of MohammeduD writers that the
Koran came from God.

As this matter is of no Ettle. importance, let us consider it a
little more carefully.

We are to believe this doctrine, say our opponent^, on the tes^ ^
timony of ecclesiastical tradition. Nay, they tell us tliat we
cannot prove it but by such tradition. Now, as we have alrea-
dy observed, our belief, in ecclesiastical tradition is claimed on
two grounds, first, that it is a faithful witness of what the Apostles
delivered orally, and secondly, on the ground that the promises
of God forbid the supposition that the whole church should be in
error on an important point.

Take» then, first, the case of an unbeliever, and suppose him
to be told that he is bound to believe this truth on the evidence
of ecclesiastical tradition. You, therefore, in effect tell him
that he is bound to believe this truth, because those of whose char-
acter and inspiration he is in doubt affirmed it, (which by the
way he could learn as well from their writings as from tradition,)
and because in that very book whose divine origin is in question
it is promised that Christians shall not universally err in such a
point. A wonderfully convincing argument this truly !

The absurdity of the attempt to prove the true character of
our Lord and his Apostles, upon which the inspiration of the
New Testament depends, from that church-tradition, whose
value as a teacher in the doctrines of religion has no founda-
tion but t^hat character to rely upon, is transparent.

Hence, perhaps, it is that the lovers of tradition are so luke-
warm (to say the least) as to the distribution of the Scriptures
to such. For it must be admitted that he who endeavours to
teach men from the Scriptures (which blessed be God, is the
great principle of Protestantism) must be prepared to prove that
they are the word of God upon grounds that include much more
than the Church's testimony in their favour.

And here is observable the great difference between the mode
of teaching men advocated by our opponents and the Romanists
and that which corresponds with the great principle of Prote;s<i
tantism. Our opponents anxiously urge upon us the doctrine
that we are to go to patristical tradition for what we teach n^en
and that after we have so done, Scripture is to be resorted to as
a parallel revelation to confirm us in the views derived from tra-
dition.

The Fathers, however, to whom they are so fond of appeal-
ing, certainly took a different course, for they appealed to the
Scriptures as the great teacher of mankind, and urged upon
unbelievers the various evidences upon which their claim to di-
vine authority rests, herein manifestly dissenting from our oppo-

864 eBovniM for bklisp

nents, and showing that they regarded those evidences as sufficient
to prove that divine authority.

The process of spiritual education, then, according to the notions
of our opponents is this, — The learner is to be taught by the re-
pre^ntativeof the Church the traditions of the Church upon the
subject of religion, and then when he has embraced the truths
of Christianity upon the testimony of the Church, the Church
delivers to him certain writings composed by those from whom
she has originally derived the faith, and the learner having be-
forehand become a believer in the faith and a faithful disciple of
the Church, receives those Scriptures as divine upon the testimo-
ny of the Church.

•* When we say therefore," our opponents may urge, " that it
is church tradition by which alone we know that Scripture is
the word of God, we are speaking of those who have been brought
up in the bosom of the Church, or at least have been instructed by
her," i. e. in short (whether they proceed to so distinct an admis-
sion of the fact or not) believers, for men must be either believ-
ers or unbelievers, that is those who already believe in the divine
mission of our Lord and his Apostles, and consequently that the
revelation made by them came from God.

Now there can be no doubt that in the very earliest tiroes of
the Christian Church many did become acquainted with the re-
velation now contained in the Scriptures through the medium of
that instruction which they received from ministers of the Church,
who communicated to them the true unadulterated doctrine de-
livered by our Lord and his apostles. But even they did not
believe its divine origip on the sole ground of church-tradition.
Their belief was founded partly upon the internal evidence af-
forded by the power and excellence of the revelation, and partly
upon those external testimonies which included much more than
the teaching of the Church.

But to assume, what is taken for granted in the reasoning of
our opponents just alluded to, that the true and unadulterated
doctrine delivered by our Lord and his Apostles has been per-
petuated in the Church bv tradition to the present time, so that
her pupils are instructed in that doctrine from tradition and not
from Scripture, is to assume the very point which is in dispute,
viz., that tradition is a safe medium for the conveyance of doc-
trinal matters. We deny the truth of this position, and main-
tain that had the truth been left to church tradition for its per-
petuation, it would have required a miraculous interference on
the part of God to have preserved it, and consequently that where
the teaching of the Church is agreeable to Scripture, it is to
Scripture that we are indebted as the means of its preservation,
and that where that teaching goes beyond Scripture, no claim

THAT ■eiiFrgBB h nmnsD. 96i

oifcH be }\mMj mude for it inepired ieaching on nccountof the
uncertainty of tradition.

We deny, therefore, the truth of the assumption here made,
tiiat the Qhurch where she teaches the truth teacher from tradi-
tion. Church^tradition has not preserved the truth. The Scrips
tores have preserved it, and the Church, through the Scriptures^
has been enabled to retain it. We consequently deny the infer*
ence here drawn from that assumption.

And, in fact, the main question upon which the inspiration of
Scripture depends stil^ recurs. For how, I would nsk, was the
pupil of the Church convinced that the retigion preached to him
by the Church came from God t The chief and necessary mean
fw that conviction was the power of the Spirit of God impress-
ing it upon his heart and conscience, and this united with the in-
ternal evidence in its favour, is all of which nine-tenths of man-
kind would be capable. Have they not, then, equal proof in
every reftpect for the divine origin of the same religion when they
meet with it in the pages of Scripture ? Is the teaching of the
Churcfaso superior to the teacbine* of the Apostolical writings,
that the Christian religion commenos itself to the consciences of
men more in the former than in the latter? The evidence/then;
whatever it' be, which would induce men to receive the orthodox
teaching of the Church as divine, is the evidence upon which they
believe the divine origin of the religion delivered to us in the Holy
Scriptures.

How, indeed, were many of the heathen in early times brought
to a knowledge and belief of the Christian religion by the first
Christian Missionaries, if the internal testimony united with the
work of the Holy Spirit on the heart is not sufficient to produce
faith in itt And if that testimony is sufficient, then the witness
of Scripture does not absolutely require the evidence of history
to produce faith in its declarations being a divine revelation. For
surely the testimony of the Apostles in the New Testament is as
efficient a preacher as any uninspired man can be.

True, it may be objected that even a proof of the divine origin
of the truths delivered to us in the Scriptures does not strictly
prove that those Scriptures were indited by inspired authors, but
not to say that under the circumstances of the case it goes a long
way towards it, the great and only essential point is, whether
the' truths delivered in it are of divine origin, whether the au-
thors of those revelations contained in it were inspired. In a word,
the great point in the question of the inspiration of Scripture fa,
whether the religion delivered in it is from God. And though
the proof of this will not demonstrate the inspiration of the Scrip-
liiret, it is the most necessary part of the evidence for the proof
of that truth, and t|ie only thing necessary for salvatbn.

H H*

The testimooy^ therefore, of the church or putrkttcftl trtjitioa
falls at least far short of a proof of the doctrine of the iii8|»ratMi
of Scripture.

Bat although the internal eyidence, united with the operatioa*
of the Spirit of God upon the heart, may be with the goteralky
the great and almost sole proof, and with all a necessary, part iC
the proqf, of the divine origin of the religion delivered to «» ia
the Scriptures, and consequently of the inspiration of the
Scriptures, yet no doubt there is also powerful ezterfial evi*
dence to thb truth; and to the unassisted mind this external evi-
dence is a necessary part of the proof of the inspiration of these
particular writings, and an important part of the proof of the di*
vine origin of the revelation contained in them, though not per*
haps absolutely necessary when we consider the force of the in-
ternal evidence, which, I think, facts show us, b the great in-
ducement to men to embrace the Christian faith.

Now, this external evidence to the doctrine of the inspiration
of Scripture and to the question of the extent of the inspired
writings rests upon certain facts, the knowledge of which must
be conveyed to us by the testimony of others. Here, then^ patris-
ticai tradition necessarily comes in as an important part of that
testimony. But even here it forms only a part of the testimony*

Let us now, then, proceed to observe what is the evidence we
have, apart from the witness of the Spirit, to the inspiration of
the Scriptures, a question which of course includes that of their
canonicity, genuineness, and uncorrupted preservation, as we
shall see in the course of the inquiir.

I will take the case of the New Testament only, as that is the
one more particularly concerned in this controversy, and the in-
spiration of the New Testament being proved, the inspiration of
the Old Testament easily follows.

I would observe, then, on this head, first, that it must be ad-
mitted that if we can establish the divine missiop of our Lord»
and the inspiration of hb Apostles, it follows, that their instruc-
tions on the subject of religion are to be considered as the Word
of God.

. I am quite aware that thb position will be dbputed by some,
wt^o, in order to enhance the value of " tradition," do not regard
it as a sufficient proof that a book is inspired, that it was written
by an inspired Apostle, and therefore hold the necessity of ^' tra-
dition," mr assuring us that these particular productions of the
Apostles were inspired. But I would ask, how was the distinc-
tion made between their inspired and uninspired producti<m87
Bj what authority did they who formed the canon of Scripture
decide that these productions only of the Apostles were inspired 7
WW it be said that there were other writings of the AposUes on

TBAT tOWf tVUi lIvlMtntBB. M7

the ittkjcct of fhe Ghrigtmn religioo wfaick were net iMpfape^, er
was it not tbe sole question with the Gbvch, wben aiimittiDg
books bearing the Apostles^ name into the canon, whether they
weregenniae? All that tbe Apostles detiTered on the sabject
of religioo, being delivered bj persons divinely inspired, may -be
considered as the Word of Crod ; and all that the primitive church
ever imagined to be necessary to prove respecting the writings
of tbe Apostles, when determining tbe extent of tne canon, waa
their genuineness.

Suppose a work not included in the canon could be proved to
have been written by one of the Apostles after the day of Pente«
cost, would any man who fully believed that it was written by
an inspired Apostle, venture to say that he would not recdve it
because tbe Apostle might not have been inspired in writing it?

This question^ as it appears to me, is one of prime importance
in this matter. For if it be not admitted that all that the Apos*
ties wrote on tbe subject of religion was divinely inspired, then
what evidence have we that those particular productions of the
Apostles included in the New Testament were inspired? We
want, in that case, dirine directions as to what productions of the
Apostles were inspired, and what were not ; and haw is this to
be obtained ? The Romanists will reply, — from *< tradition^ and
the authority of the Church. But if by ^ tradition** they mean the
oral teaching of the Apostles, I reply that we have not the slight-
est evidence that the Apostles ever did claim for those particular
productions of theirs any greater authority than for tne rest of
their instructions ; and that the internal testimony of their wri-
ttags shows that they entertained no such idea. It is quite true
that they spoke sometimes by permission, and not by command*
ment, and gave adviee for which they did not claim the direct
sanction of tbe Holy Spirit; but this is no proof thatthey were
not at all times guided by that Spirit when formally ddivering .
the doctrines and precepts of Christianity.

Moreover, tbe language of tbe Fathers clearly shows that they
considered it to be only necessary to prove that a book or doc*
trine came from an Apostle, to prove its inspiration and autho*
rity;* and that, when deternnning the canon of Scripture, tbe

I 8m EoMb. Uitt. Eoclet. Ub. iiL eap. M »nd 85. (ed. Valet.) 8m alM di.
38» where the canon icitjr of tbe Epietle to the Hebrewe if evidentlj foppoeed ta
be proved if there is reason to think that it was written bj 8t Paul; and par-
ticularly the language of 8eraplon (lib. Ti. e. IS.) where apeaking of acme wri-
tinge' ^laeij aatribed to Peter, he aaya, ** we reeeive Peter and the reet of tbe
Apostlea aa we would Christ, bat we reject the writinga falaelj aacribed to ttiea,"
And thia clearly follows from the way in which the books that were to be re*
ceived at of aatbority in the Christian charch are conatantly mentioned by tha
^rly Chriaiian writers, who describe them as tbe Ooepela and the Epittlet •/
IA« ApttUtt the Evangelical and Jip99tolical 8criptares. And ao Jerome says

9tle ^qtatif wkb Hmib wm wliat writifigB they kad, cMftfoaed
by (he<ApotddB^ or »aift Idas! tti oiler tlwif kmnoKale supeiinten^
deobe and Mnction ; and, aft I shall prore hereafter, tliat they
negatfdeditto books as ofantboiity but those that were eo com-

And. if yom aaj it is fromtbe testimony or aatborityiif the
Church, you dain fi>r the Cfauflrh n -d^ree of impiratioD great*
er thau that you albw to 'the Apostles, for you can only attach
certainty to the decision of the Church by suppooog that the
Ohuioh is perknanently inspired to deliver the truth, while you
allow not sm^hpermflDeat {aspiration ta the Apostles.

It amy. be a matter for consid^^tioa how far that inspiration
oxtendedy and we know from facts which they have themselves
stated, that it did not ensure them infiiliibility in all re«peetB and
allmatterSi but weare now considering them tnerdy as iastruc-
tacs in the Christian religion. The common objeetiDn derived
firoili the reproof given to Peter by Paul, 'is 'well disposed of
by TertttUian.^

Observe, also, in what situation it places their fcvourite doc-
triae of ** tradition," if they say that, to prove the inspiration of
the aoriptura8,:it is not sufficient to prove the inspiration of their
authors^ For then how are we assured that that which the
Church professes to derive by *' tradition" from the oral teaching
of tha Apostles was inspired T It is not sufficient evidence in
this. case lor the nuthority of sucb tradition, even to suppose that
it is an in&Hiblytrue report of what the Apostles delivered; but
we.'mtl8t suppose that there is also Sbme evidence or authority
soonewhere to assure us, that those particular instructions of the
Apostles, which patristical tradition is said to have handed down
to us, were delivered by inspiration, and I would ask where that
evidence^ or authority can be found. There was certainly no
.ckira made by the primitive Church to distinguish between the
doctrines or instructions delivered by the Aposdes, so as to de-
cide which was delivered by inspiration and which not. If the
Apostles ape not always safe guides in their instructions on the
subject of reUgion^ where are we to look for such guides ? for I
suspect that most men will be disposed to think, that if the Apos«
ties were not always to be trusted in their instructions, neither is
the Church ; for certainly, neither the promises made to the lat-
ter, nor its history, give stronger ground for confiding in it than

of 8t. John, that he was *'both an Apostle, an Evangelist, and a Prophet; an
Apostle in thit he wrote to the churches as a roaster," Ac. Joannes et Aposto-
hii et ETsngOlista et Propheta. Apostolus quia scripsit ad Ecctesiaa ut jnagia*
ter, dec. Adyj Jovinian. lib. i. § 36. torn. ii. col. 27tf. ed. Vail. Veoo.)

■ Adf. Marc lib. c iy. 3. and Do Prescr. cc SS, 24.

THAT WOKtWVMU It intHUO. 96%

the promiiea Blade to tbe farmer, and their bialory, do f>r con*
fidiBg ID then.

As far, then, as concerns the books of the New Testameat
which we can prove to have been written by the Apostles, a
proof of the divine misBion of our Lord, and the inspiration of
bis ApostleS) will equally prove that the Scriptures of the Apos-
tles are to be viewed as the word of God. And this I take to
be the only way of proving the inspiration of all that they have
delivered on the subject of religion ; for it is evident that the in-
spiration of each sentence could not be separately proved by any
application of internal and external evidence, and can only be
deduced from a proof of the inspiration of the author^ that it,
bis being recognized as a' teacher commissioned and empowered
by God to instruct mankind in true religion.

Besides the Scriptures of the Apostles, three books only, via*
the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles by
Luke, have been admitted into the canon of the New Testament.
Their case we shall consider distinctly; our present inquiry re-
lates only to the writings of the Apostles.

It is affirnsed, that many ages ago there appeared on earth

those who professed to be authorised by God to instruct mankiiMi

-in the nature of true religion. We inquire, then^ what evidence

is producible in favour of this claim> in order that if it be a just

claim we may guide ourselves by their instructions.

The first question, then, will surely be, what was their doctrine^
what the nature of their instructions 7 The internal evidence
may be an insufficient witness, standing alone, to prove the di-
vine origin of their doctrine, but its witness is material to
rational beings. . The answer to this question we shall naturally
look for in those unitings which have come down to us» attribu*
ted to them, and professing to give an account of their doctrine;
and our first inquiry must of course be^ are these writings genu*
ine and incorrupt f .

It does not, of course, enter into my design here to point out at
length the whole of the evidence on these and other points con-
nected with our present inquiry, as such a discussion would be
both out of place and unnecessary, after what has been already
published oa the subject,* and would require a volume to do any
justice to it ; but chiefly to point out the character of the evidence
we have on these points, in order to show where and how far
church-tradition comes in.

On what grounds, then, may we receive these writings as
genuine^ that is, as written by those whose names they bear?

1 See the wocki of Letlie, Addison, Jenkin, SUIIingfleet, Lardner, Palej, and
othera, and eipeciilljr Mr. Horoe's f ery talaabto *< iDlnnlQctioii to iht Stadj of

by Mie.ApotiMB^ or >ftA Uaskinrj
dente and tftaction*; andt a»/ '
negatdedioo books at of Mjf
posed. '

And ifjHm flay it is/ ^
Cburch, you eW« fo*r ^^ \
«r thaa tbat you aUo}^^ | ^

certainty to the dcM i
Obiivoh IB pertiiaoj ;^ > >

f

iher
.8 of wrii
/ftK> have all a
with «ooie e^

^a; 1. e. ^uiflomc c^
.«ienily : aad consiJeriBg u.
d been handed dcwa from one to
..neat in their fovour.
caution- the reader against a statement
. long as the canon of the New Testament

«Uow not sttcih (^ f^
ItflBiiy. beafS ^

exteffw)Qd,.dn^|

stated, Aat/^

alLmatterr

tocsinth

£rorti tb^ -lie doctrinal ^ tradition" existing in the Church

bf TV ^ching of the Apostles* was " divinely appointed in

iy ^n as the /oucA^/cme of canonical Scripture itself,"

tnir J This statement he attempts to prove by the admonition

|> g^ Paul to the Galatiaiis, " Though we or an angel from
^f sii pleach any other ^pel unto you than that which we
L^e preached unto j^out let him be anathema," (Gal.i. 8.); and
^ 1 John ii. 7 ; 20, 31, 27 ; iv. I; 3. 2 John d. Here is another
instance of what our opponents are so fend o(^ an assumption of
the very point in <|ueetion. The warnings here given are against
the hearer9 of the ^postlea thefnsehes believing anything con-
trary to the doctriae which they had been taught by the ^pos*
ties themselves («nd who ever denied that tfaeir oral teaching
was of authority t) Therefore, says Mr. Keble, tradition^ i. e.
thfe report of ^at teaching handed down from one to another,
was M divinely appointed as the touehstoae of canonical Scrip-
ture," and adds to this extraordinary nonsequitur tb^ following
as extraordinary flourish about it. '' This use of apostolical
tradition nnay well correct thepresumpiuous irreverence of dis-
paraging the Faihersy under plea of magnifymg Scripture.
Here is a TRADrriOR so highly honoured by the Almighty Founder
and Guide of the Church, as to be made the stemdard and rale
of his owfi Divine Scriptures. The very writings of the •Apos-
tles were to be first tried by it before they eouldbeinc&rpora^
ted intd the canon. Thus the Scriptures tbemselvesy. as it were,
do homage to the tradition of the Apostles; the despisers there*
lore, of that tradition [as if any one did despise the oral teach-
ing of tfae Apostles, and that the question wals not merely whether
we have got that teaching or not] take part inadvertently or
profanely with the despisers of the Scripture itself." (p. 28.)
Solemn words these> certainly, and as our friends acfoss the

TMAV tCSfPTinUI It'IMrUtSD. 071

Atiaotic 8a J, ^ ieftportaiit if true ;'' but ail their appareot ibroe
arises from bis having confouoded the real traditioD or teaching
of the Apostles with the report of it by others. And. then, adds
-Mr. Keble, <^ on. the other haod^U is no less evideDt» that Sorip*
tarOf being once ascertained, became in ii^ ium a test for,everj
thing ctaimiiig to be of Apostolical tradition." And. so tradition
having been in one generation the touchstone of Scripture, the
obligation was< returned in the next, by Scripture saying this or
that is tradition; and thus they mutually assisted. one another.
But it would be worth knowing why, if tradition could be so de-
pended upon in one generation as the touchstone for ascertainii^
what was Scripture, there should he any need in the next u
Scripture to point out what was tradition. This looks very much
as if there was a lurking consciousness that, afi^* all, tradition
«tood upon a somewhat slippery footing*

But enough of such statements. How stands the real state of
the case? The writings of the Apostles were, either given in

fierson or seat by trusty messengers to the converts of the writers,
n.tbe latter. case (though it can hardly even then be said that
the oral teaching of the Apostles was *' the touchstone" of such
a writing) no doubt the writing would, not have been received if
it had contained anything clearly contrary to the oral teaching
of the Apostles. But there, at least, their office of judging end-
ed, and the question of the genuineness of the writings was set
at rest and determined by thc^se who were contemporary with
the Ap^stlsSftttld had heard them preach, and were in fact their
own converts. And it appears from 2 Thess. iii. 15, jthat St.
Paul adopted a particular mode of sigoaturet to his epistles that
might be a mark of their genuineness. " The salutation of me
Paul," he says, '* with mine own hand, which is the token in
every epistley<o I write." And the writings thus admitted and
acknowledged as genuine (and the originals of most, if not all of
thean, long preserved in thearchive&of the Apostolical churches)
were handed down from one to another, and hence found their
way into the universal church lis writings of acknowledged au-
thority.^ And if, in after times, a- question arose about any par-
ticular book 'or books professing to. come from the Apostl^, the
inquiry was, Can it be traced up to the Apostles through thetes*
timooies of those who have preceded us,' and a comparison was
instituted between it and the undoubted writings of the Af>os*
ties** If the book could be plainly traced up to an Apo»tle,
there waran end to the question. If it could not be so. trac#d

1 Stoe Teitoll. D6 FrMer. c. Il6 and adv.'Mnc. {▼. 5.

* 8ee Eaieb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cc 3 and 25.

s ^ £«fsb. Hist mod. iii. %^, s^d Tertoll. adr. }^uo. it. 3. Deol^a*, Ike*

«p, «V«D though it might Dot be contrary to Amtoliul doctrine,
its canonicity would be proportionably doubtful. And hence it
wu that doubts were entertained by same \a the primitive church
at to the cauonicity of some of those books wbkh were after-
vrards admitted lato the canoa by, generally speaking, the uni-
versal charch ; admitted evidently not by " the touchstone" of
tradition> for 1 suppose that tradition was, at least, not more cer*
tain, or definite, or authoritative, at the close (^ the fourth cea-
tury, when the first canon of any General Council, giving a cala-
logue of the canonical books, was passed at Laodicea,' than it
was in the earlier periods of the church, nor could a Council
make that ontbolic consent to which alone authority is ascribed
where it did wA.flnd it, but because it was generally considered
that the evidence for their geQUinCDess was such as to entitle
them to a place in the canon. And I must say that the recol-
lection of those early doubts (though unwarranted doubts) might
have saved Luther from the opprobiuni siMnetimes cast upon him
ire to bnrk at ttie reformers for doubtiog at one
anonici^ of a book about which some in the early
ibted. The notion, therefore, of any Father, or
atfaers, setting tbemselvet up in the purer tines of
judge of the canouicity of writings professiBg to
Apostles by the touchstone of a doctrinal " tradif
' unwarranted.

ro to our subject ,thiB testimony of Christian an-

eauioeness of these writings is both important and

absence indeed would be fatal But is it all we

even alone sufficient ? If the heretics, and the

then adversaries of Christianity had all frotn the

:d the genainenees of these books, would it have

ory state of tMngsT We must inquire, then, what

their testimony was, and we find a ttill ttroager pnx^ of the

genuinenen of these writings in the testimonies of the tieretics

aod the Jewish and heathen adversaries of ChriitinDity.

I do not mean to say that all the Keretia universally admit-
ted the genuineness of alt the books of the New Testament as we
now have them, because some of them rejected some books and
others other books. But taking them as a body, the argument
derived from their testimony to the genuineness of Scripture,
even in parts opposed to their notions, is a very strong one, and
as such it was applied long ago by Irenteus, — " fio great certain-
ty i* there," he says, " with regard to these Oospels, that the
very heretics thentselves bear witness to them, and every one of
them endeavours to confirm hit doctrine out of Ihem. For tbe

• 1*U* MtalofM iMlnded sH thu »• Mesiw bat ihs book sf KnilsiBM.

THAT tOBIPTURK 18 IlfSPIBBD. 373

Ebionites who use the Gospel of Matthew only, are by that very
Qospel refuted as in error respecting the Lord. And Marcion,
who mutilates the GrospeJ of Luke» is proved a blasphemer
against the one true God by those parts which are retained by '
him* And they who separate Jesus fr6m Christ, and* say that
Christ did not suffer but that Jesus suffered, preferring the Gos-
pel of Mark, may be convinced of their error by reading that
with a love of the truth. And the Valentinians using the Gospel
of John entire in order to prove their conjunctions, may be proved
by it to be in error, as we have shown in the first book. Since
therefore they who oppose us give their testimony to these
[i. e. the four GospelsJ and use them^ ourproqf derived from
them is firm and trustworthy.^*^

From this passage, then, it is evident that even at that early
period Irenasus considered that patristical tradition was but a
part of the proof of the genuineness, &c of Scripture, and that
aft important oart of it consisted in the testimony of others, of
those who mignt be considered nM>re independent and impartial
witnesses.

Moreover, that the testimony of the heretics as a body was in
favour of Scripture as a whole follows from the very complaint
so frequently made bv the Romanists and our opponents, — a com-

Claint no doubt justified to some extent by fact, and supported
y the FatherSi — that the heretics were in the habit of appeal-
ingto Scripture in support of their views.

We have next to mquire whether these writings as we now
possess them are in an incorrupt state.

Here, again, it is natural to observe, first, the care of the
church with regard to them. The early Christians would no
doubt be excee(fingly solicitous to preserve these writings incor-
rupt The originals seem long to have been preserved with
great care in the custody, not of any private individual, but of
the archives of the churches, and copies were taken by persons
approved by the church. Moreover, the eariiest preachers of
Christianity took ereat care to have copies dispersed every-
where and left with their convertSw^ And numerous translations
were made in very eariy times,* some of which remain to this
day.

But church-tradition strictly speaking has nothing to do with
the matter. We want only fidelity and accuracy in copyings

1 Ind. tdt. har. Hb. iiL e. xl. Ed. Grtbe, p. 2t0. Ed. Msii, torn. i. pp. IS9,
190.

a 8m Eoteb. Hkt Eoel. iku 87.

* Aog. D« doetr. Cbritt. lib* ii« c 5. ad. B«d* torn, iii* pi !• eoL SI. Ohiytk in
Job. bom. ii. (al. 1.) ed. Ben. torn. Ti!L p. 10. TiModorit. Dt cor. G««e. afieet.
UK ▼. ed. Boknlse, torn. it. pp. 889, 840. * '

VOL* I. II

374 OBOUlflM FOB BSLUBV

and handing down these writings themeelves in an incorrti|)t
state to the next age, and this a deaf and dumb person could do
as well as any one else. It is obviously a very different thing to
hand down to posterity certain written documents and to hand
down reports of oral teaching. Written records left in the keep-
ing of a Bishop, and handed down by each to his successor (as
the Scriptures were in early times) must surely be looked upon
in a very difierent light to oral reports of what this or that Ibr-
mer Bbhop of the Diocese had preached.

And over and above this we have still stronger testimony in
favour of the incorrupt state of these writinn ia various other
ways; viz. in the number and antiquity of the copies and their
being found in all parts qf the worlds all agreeing with each
other in all essential points, in the antient versions^ in the simu
larity of their contents to the accounts given of them by the
earliest Fathers, and the quotations from them in those FatherSr
and also in the testimony borne to them by the great body of
the heretics^ whose evidence tends to substantiate, some one
part, some another, of the sacred volume, and lastly in the quo*
tations and references made by the enemies qf Christianity.

But notwithstanding we have all this evidence (of the strength
of which we can form no idea without following it out into its
details) in favour of the genuineness and incorrupt state of these
writings, and that the question as to the preservation of written
documents is essentially different to that which respects the
preservation of oral teaching, Mr. Newman coolly tells us, that
*' whatever explanations the Protestant in question makes in be-
half of the preservation of the written word will be found ap-
plicable in the theory to the unwritten." (p. 46.) As well might
it be said, that one who heard a report that had passed throi^
a multitude of hands of a discourse orally delivered was as like-
ly to be accurately informed respecting it, as he who had had
delivered to him through the same number of hands a written
copy of the discourse actually delivered. Even were it true that
we depended solely on patristical tradition for the incorrupt state
of the sacred books, that would not affi>rd the slightest proof that
such tradition was to be depended upon for accurate informa-
tion as to the oral teaching of the Apostles.

The argument is.ai usual taken from the Romish armoury.
** They," says the Jesuit Fisher, *' that can deliver by uniform
tradition a false sense, why mar they not also deliver a false text
as received from the Apostles f an arrament convmcing and un»
answenkble." To which our learned Bishop White thus repKes^
^ The Jesuit imaipneth that this argument is invincible. But let
not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that pat-
teth it off • • • • The argument reduced to form will discover

THAT tCSIPTTTKS U IMSPIXBD. 975

iU own weaknese. * If the text of the Scripture may as easijj
be corrupted as the sense, then all they which can deliver by
uniform tradition a false sense may also deliver a false text. But
the text of the Scripture may as easily be corrupted as the sense.
Ergo, all they which can deliver by uniform tradition a false sense
ma^ also deliver a false text.' The assumption of this syllogism,
which although it were concealed by the Paralogist, yet it must
be added to tn^Lkethe argument pertect,h apparently fabe^vtnd
the contrary is true. The text of the Scripture cannot so easily
be corrupted as the sense, and therefore it is not necessary that
they which following human tradition or their own invention may
deliver a false sens6 shall likewise deliver a false text. First, the
text of the Scripture is contained in records and books which
are dbpersed throughout the whole Christian world, and pre-
served in all churches, and the copies and transcripts of them are
innumerable .... Secondly, when God Almighty would have \
the knowledge and memory of things to be perpetual he com-
manded that they should be committed to writing. Exod. xvii.
14, and xxxiv. 27. Oeut xxxi. 19 Thirdly, expe-
rience of all ages testifieth that the text of the Scripture hath
been preserved ihvjolable even among Jews and heretics. ....
Fourthly, whereas the Jesuit compareth unanimous tradition of
the sense of Scripture with the written letter and text of the
Scripture, unless he equivocate in the name, terming that tra^
dition which is collected from the Scripture, such uniform tra-
dition as he boasteth of is very rare ; for it must be such as in
all ages and in all orthodoxal churches hath been the same.
Now the most undoubted and uniform tradition of all other is
concerning the number and integrity of the books of holy Scrip-
ture, and yet in this difference hath been between one church
and another, and the later Roman church disagreeth with the
antient."^ And so elsewhere he says, ** It is not necessary that
they which truly deliver the text shall also truly deliver the
Apostolical sense, and on the contrary a lying sense may be de-
livered by them which retain the true and incorrupt letter of the
text, as appeareth by the Pharisees, Arians, Donatists, and many
other heretics."*

And so Augustine points out, in a passage already quoted, on
what a different ground the Holy Scriptures stand in this respect
to any other writings, and consequently to the sources whence
our opponents' traditive statements and interpretations are de-
rived ; the writings of no bishop, however illustrious, being ca-

*

1 Reply to Jesuit Tieher'e Answer to eerUin qaesUons, pp. 123~6.

* lb. pp. 180, 121. Bishop White is ooe of the difines of the ** Aoglo*Cetho-

376 ^ROUHIMI FOIt BSUW

paUe of being preierved as the canonical Scriptere it preienned
on account oftne number of langaages in which it is foupdy and
its being constantly rehear^d in the church, which rendered any
attempt at corruption or forgery useless.^

It may be well to inquire in the next place* what .evidence
we have that these writings are authentic; that is, that the
facts related in them, really took place* A consideration of this
evidence will lead the mind more easily to the great point which
we have to consider afterwards, the great truth sou^t to be es-
tablished.

We bave^ then, for this truth, first, the internal evidence of
these writings themselves. The facts related are not such as
men are Jikely to have feigned ; they are frequently injurious to
the character of the writers ; there was no reasonable motive
for such a fiction, for it led the authors only into temporal calami-
ties and death ; and many similar weighty considerations con^ire
to show the truth of the facts stated.

We have next the external evidence ; first, that derived from
the church. But this is not church-tradition, but merely the
/act of the belief of these books by so many, at a time, when, if
the events recorded in them had not been true, they would have
obtained no credit; secondly , that derived from the witness of
heretics, and also from the numerous and direct testimonies af-
forded by the Jews and heathen, the enemies of Christianity, that
the chief events here recorded did really happen.

To these evidences may be added further tnose considerations
which show us the credibilUy of the statements of Scripture ;
such, for instance, as prove the credibility of miracles, remove
apparent contradictuMis, and show that there is nothing in these
writings contrary to reason ; none of which, however, as is evi-
dent, can be derived at all from church-tradition.

In all these preliminary points, then, there is one only in which
patristical tradition, propeny speaking, can aid us; and that is, on
the question of the genuineness of the Scriptures; and there,
though important and necessary as part of the proof, we have
other and still more unexceptionable testimony.

Supposing, then, that the Scriptures we possess are genuint^
incorrupt^ authentic^ and credible^ we have next to inquire,
what evidence we have that they may be reckoned the word of
Grod ; which, as we have already observed, is tantamount to the
inquiry what evidence we have of the divine mission of our Lord
and the inspiration of his Apostles ; or at least a proof of the
latter will equally demonstrate the former.

Let ,us b^in with the divine mission of our blessed Lord.

I 866 pp. SCO, 201 aboT6. ^

THAT lOSIfTUBS 18 IKSPntBD. 377

New to go to cburcb-tradition for any direct proof of this, or
of the inspiration of the Apofltlee, is obviously absurd; for if there
were no foundation for tliese truths, any, even the highest, de-
gree of catholic consent, would have no real weight ; for all the
value that can be ascribed to it in this case, rests, upon the sup-
position that these are truths. The only weieht, therefore, which
church-tradition can have in these points, is from its being the
representation of the opinion of a vast number of individuals, who,
from the time of the appearance of our Lord to this, have held
that these are truths, which may reasonably be an introductory
motive^ to belief in themi rendering their truth in some degree
probable, but nothing more ; for the same evidence is affbrdal to
Mohammedism and Pagianism.

The truth we are now seeking to estabiisb, rests upon two sorts
of evidence, external and internal

The external consists chiefly of the evidence derived from the
four following sources.

(1) The voice from heaven at our Lord's baptism, and at his
transfiguration.

(2) The miracles he wrought ; especially as connected with the
character of his doctrine*

#(8) The prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled in him, and
ills own recorded in the New Testament.

(4) The power and success of the Gospel, notwithstanding its
opposition to the feelings and desires of the natural mind«

To enlaree upon these points, and. show the demonstrative
nature of the proof derived from them, is not now ouf object.
It has been done over and over again, far more ably than we
could hope to do it But we have to point out upon what testi"
mony this external evidence rests, and to show how little church-
tradition has to do with it.

For Xhe firsts then, we have the testimony of the- Apostles in
their writings (already shown to be genuine and authentic) re-
cognized by Cebus, the great enemy of Christianity. This af-
fords at least some probable evidence of the divine mission of our
Lord.

For the second^ that is, our Lord's miraclesi we have the tes-
timony, not only of the Apostles, but what is more, of his great
enemies^ the. Jews; and that not merely as recorded by the
Apostles, but by their own writers^ and also of heathen writers.

For the thirds we have for the existence of the prophecies
fulfilled in him, long previous to his incarnation, the irrefutaUe
evidence of the boolcs of the Old Tetftament, then and still in the
keeping of his great enemies, the lews; and for those uttered by

< 8m UB4'f€oiie with FUmt, sad 8iilUngifec'» eroasds, te. pr l»r» t.

378 oBOumM roB bxlisf

hkny tbe tettimoo j (already proved to be avAestk) of bis Apos-
tlesy and for their fulfilmeot, as regards tbe Jews, tbe UDiversallj-
received attestatioDS of history, as well as the evidence of their
present state.

For the fourth, we have the testioionyy both of inends and
enemies, and of onr own senses.

The reader may at once see, then, how far we have to de-
pend upon church- tradition for this evidence.

Tbe internal evidence is derived from ibe ezodlent Mtnre
and effects of the doctrine which our Lord taught. Tbe appeal
here is to the hearts and consciences of mankmd ; and however
those who have been accustomed from infancy to eayxj its bght,
may slight the evidence which its brilliancy affords of'^its divine
origin^ it was looked upon at its advent, by those who could ap-
preciate it, in a very difierent light By the early teachers of
Christiani^, this was the great evidence put forward in proof of
its divine origin ; an evidence, of which time cannot weueo the
force, and wnich, as it appears to me, still remains the most pow-
erful inducement to men to embrace the Christian faith, the
most convfocing argument of its divine origin. It is quite true
that the prepossessions of the natural mind may ^en lead it into
error, when so Judging ; but that is due, not to the charactcf of
the evidence U*om which the judgment is formed, but to tbe
corruption of our follen nature. It is no more a proof that
Christianity does not show its origin by the internal evidence it
carries with it, than heretiqal misall^tions of Scripture show
that Scripture doea.not bear a clear testimony in favour of the
orthodox faith;

There is, one observation, however, I would make respecting
it ; and that is, that it appears to me to be applicable xmly in
proof of the divine mission of the Founder of our religion ; be-
cause that religion, when once introduced, might be preached
by many who were entirely destitute. both of inspiration and di-
vine commission to do so. The evidence of the internal witness
of Scripture to its divine inspiration, is, I conceive, of this kind ;
viz., that the revelation made, taken as a whole, is so excellent
in its nature and efiects, as to bear a powerful witness to its di-
vine origin, and consequently to the divine mission of Him who
4rst delivered it to mankind $ not that the internal evidence can
be a sure criterion as to any particular book to establish its
in^iration ; though it may, in some cases,- be sufficient to nega-
tive it

Thus, then, do we establish the divine mission of our Lord ;
and consequently the truth that what he ddi^ered was tbe word
of God.

Bnt tbott) it becomes necessary to inquire what were tbe quali-

-, THAT SCUFTVBB U IIUFISXD.

ficatHHU of Uxwe wbo bare delivered h» doctrioe to as. Though
we may Buppose that thej were honest and faithful carratora of
eventa, have we aoy assurBDce that they were preserved from
error in delivering that doctrine to us, and still more in enlai^;-
ing npoD, and ezplainii^, and adding to that doctrine t If, in-
d^, we agreed with the Romanista and our opponents, that fal-
lible men could convey tp us a " practically infallible" report of
doctrinal tnithi, we need not, as far as our Lord's teachios was
concerned, have made any further inquiry ; but (and I shallleave
to our oppooents to give the reason) it certainly appears that
even as to this, we have not been left to the teaching of mere
fallible men.

We have proof that /Ae>^M/2Muieretnj7)tre<j; and this fact,
which may oe proved by their miracles connected with the
character of their teaching, may show thai when we assumed io
the proof of the divine munon of our hoti tiiat ibeir writii^
were authentic, we had not merelytheproof of italready given,
but a stronger in their inspiration.

Assuming, however, that the evidence adduced on the former
points has JMen cooclunve, we ground the doctrine of their inapira-
tion, on the fbUowing evidence.

(1) The promisesof our Ltvd.

(2) The affirmations of the Apostles in their writings.

(3) The miracles they wrought, especially as connected with
the character of the doctrine tbey preached, showing that tbey
were to be depended upon.

(4) The prophecies tney delivered.

in the fir»t of these, I refer to such promises as that recorded
in John xvL 13, that the Spirit should guide them into aQ troth,
and see John xx. 21, 22 ; in the second, to such declarationi as
that of St Paul, when he says to the Thessalonians, " When ye
received the wwd of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it
not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God,
which effectually worketh, also, io you that believe;'
ii. 13.) and those of St. Peter, where he says to the C
bis day, that the gospel had been preached unto then
Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, (1 Pet. i. IS,) a
them to be " mindful of the words which were spokei
the holy prophet^, and of (he commandment of ua, tl
of the Lord and Saviour," (2 Pet iii. 2,) and ranks
writings with the " other Scriptures," (2 Pet iii. 16 ;) and gene-
rally to the tone of authority in which they speak, as infallible .
expositor* of the doctrines of Christianity.

To give weight to the evidence derived from theae two sources,
we must, of course, assume the divine minion of our Lord, and
also that the Apostles were not impostors; for which we must refer

380 GROUNDS FOB BKLIST

back to the proof of the authenticity of their writings ; or we ma j
ground it upon that which we have now to notice as

The thirds and an independent and still stronger testimonj to
their character, viz., the miracles they wrought, especially when
we consider the nature of the doclVine they preached. These
may not perhaps be a direct proof of the inspiration of all which
they delivered on the subject of religion, but they certainly show
their true character, and are a divine attestation to the truth of
their claim to be considered divinely-appointed teachers of man-
kind. By these God bare toitness t6 them. (Heb. ii. 4.)

Now the testimony upon which we believe these miracles to
have been wrought, is derived— ^r|9/, from the account left us
in writing by one of the followers of the Apostles ; I mean the
book of the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, of which the
genuineness, authenticity, &c. may be established, as in the case
of the Apostolical Scriptures ; and secondly^ from the admis-
sions of Jews and heathens^ who were compelled to resort to the
charge of magical practices against them, to account for the
miracles they performed.

The y&ur/ A ground is that afforded us by the prophetical spirit
vouchsafed to them, the evidence of which we see not only in the
Scriptures, but in events confessedly subsequent to their times.

On these grounds, then, we believe that the Apostles were in-
spired, and being thus divinely preserved from error, and instruct-
ed in the truth, were both infallible witnesses of the doctrine
taught by our Lord, and infallible instructors of mankind in
reUgion.

We thus establish, then, the truth in question, viz. the divine
mission of our Lord, and the inspiration of his Apostles, and con-
sequently that the Scriptures of the Apostles are the word of
God. And whenever a strict proof of this truth is soueht, it
must be of this kind and nature. And, as is evident, the s<Ne use
of church-tradition in it is to bear witness to us, who live at a
Considerable distance of time from the period in which Christi-
anity was first promulgated, of certain facts cognizable by the
senses of mankind, matters which in the first instance were not
objects of faith but of knowledge^ not revelations of doctrine in
which fallible men are so likely to make mistakes, but facts such
as neither friend or foe, if honest, could make any mistake about ;
and further, the tradition of the church is only a part, and not
the strongest part, of the proof of those facts and events having
taken place.

There now remains, then, for consideration, the case of those
threje books, the authors of which were not Apostles, viz. the
Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles by Luke.^

I If the Ef isU« to the Hehrewt it not allowed to be St. Pours, (thoofh there

THAT lOBIFTVBB It HfftPISBD* 3^1

And bere I wish to draw attefttioD to a Ciici which apMara to
me to hdve almost if not quite escaped observatioD, but wMch the
geoeral lai^uage of the Fathers on the subject, and particfilarly
a passage of Tertulliaui seem clearly to prove, namely, thatthle
rule by which the canoD of the New Testament was formed was
this, that such works only should be admitted into it as were
either written by Apostles or directly commended to the Church
by them for its guidance and instruction. The passage of Ter-
tullian to which I allude is one in his 4th book against Marcion,
where being about to prove that the Gospel received by Marcion
was spurious and of no authority, he says, ** We lay it down in
the first place that the volume containing ^he authoritative re-
cords of the Gospel, (evangelicum instrumentum) has the Apos-
tles for its authors, upon whom this office of publishing the Gos-
pel was imposed by our Lord himself; if besides these it admits
•Apostolical writers, it admits not such in their own character
alone, but as associated with the Apostles, and as inferior to the
Apostles, since the preaching of the disciples might be suspected of
being influenced by (he iesireofghrjif the authoritf/ o/themas-
ters should not be affixed to it^ or rather the authority of Christ
which made the •Sposiks masters. In fine, John and Matthew
of the Apostles instil the faith into us, Luke and Markof apostoy*
cal men renew the faith already imparted,'^ &c. (^) And further
on he adds,-— ^ If the teacher himself of Luke, \u e. St. Paul,]
sought the authority of those that were Apostles before him, both
for his faith and preaching, [alluding to St Paul's going up to
Jerusalem spon after his conversion to see the Apostles,] Mw
*much more should I require that authority for the Gospel qf
Luke which wets necessary for the Gospel cf his Master T\^)
Nothing I think can be more clear than that these passages foUy
show that, in the opinion of Tertullian, nothing was to be received
into the canon of the New Testament, but that which had an
Apostle for its author, or had received direct Apostolical sanction.
And this is very much confirmed by what Jerome says, in the
passage quoted from him a few pages back ; that John was *^ an

is u appears to me satisfiictory evidence that it is^ it rnoft be added to tke
above.

(i) CoDstitoimns in primis, Evangelicnm Instrnmentnm Apoetoloe anctoree
habere, qaibns hoc mnnos Evang^lii promnlgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositom.
8i et Apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed com ApostoUi et post Apostolos. Qoo-
niam predioatio discipnioram saspecta fieri posset de giorifls studio^ si non ad-
sistat illi auetoritaa magistroram, immo Christi, ^m magistroe Apostolos fedt
Beniqae nobis fidem ex Apostolis Johaonee Matthsos insinnant, ex Apostolicis
Lncas et Marcos initaarant Teetvll. Adv. Marc W. S. Ed. ICM. p. 414.

(c) Igitor si ipse iilominator Lues anctoritatem anteceseoram et fidei et pm*
dicationi sue opuvit. qasnto raagis earn Evaiigello Laca expostdem que Evan-
gelio magistri ejoa fait neceosaria t In. ib.

I
■
1

982 GBOVNDS FOB BBUBP

Aposttet inasmttch as be wrote Epistles to the cbvrches as a
master."

The fancy, thereforet of some persons, that the early church,
that is, a certain number of its rulers, took upon themselves to
decide whether tbis man or that, this work or that, was inspired,
has no place but in their own imaginations.

Such was the principle, then, upon which the primitive Church
acted in forming tbe,canon ; and accordingly we find in the Fa-
thers a rec<^ition of this principle, in their having taken care
to inform us that these books received Apostolical sanction.

Thus of St. Mark's Gospel it is said by Tertullian, that it may
be considered as Peter's (Preti adfirmetur,) whose interpreter
Mark was;* by Eusebius, that the hearers of Peter, at Rome,
*' earnestly entreated Mark, Peter's follower, whose gospels is
extant at this day, that he would leave with them some written
record of that doctrine they had heard ; neither did they desist
till they had prevailed with the man ; and thus they gave the
occasion of writing that gospel which is called the Grospel accord-
ing to Mark. When the Apostle Peter understood by the
revelation of the Holy Spirit what was done, he was much de-
lighted with the ardent desire of the men, and confirmed that
writing by his authority, that so thenceforward it should be
read in th^ churches ;"* which account Eusebius gives from Cle-
ment of Alexandria, and says that Papias had borne the same
testimony.* The same thing is stated by Origen,^ Jerome, the
author of the Synopsis attributed to Athanasius, Cosmas Indico-
pleustes, Nicephorus, and Eutychiusof Alexandria.' And there
is a passage in the Second Epistle of Peter, which seems strongly
to indicate an intention of leaving behind him some written re-
cord of the gospel he had preached, where he says, '< I will en-
deavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these
things always in remembrance." (2 Pet. i. 15.)

Of St. Luke's gospel it is said by Tertullian, that it was ^ cus-
tomarily ascribed to Paul ;" and in the passage quoted above,
that it owed its authority to Apostolical sanction ; and by Ori-

f en it is called *' the gospel commended by Paul ;"7 and by Euse-
ius it is said, <*Tbey say also that Paul was wont to mean the
Gospel according to St Luke, when, speaking as it were of his

1 Tertoll. Adv. Mare. lib. it. c. 5. p. 416.

' EoMb. Hilt. EceL lib. ii. c 15.

A Sea Baieb. Hitt. Eccl. lib. ill. c nit., and lib. vi. c. 14.

«EoMb.H. E. Ti. 26.

* See iheae teatimoniet in Lardner'a SoppK to bit Credibility. Works, vol. «.
pp. 382, dee.

• Lac« diftestttm Paalo adscribere aolent. Adv. Marc. if. 5. p. 416.
7 Eoaeb. Hiat Ecol. vi. 25.

THAT SCBIPTURV IS INSPIRBD. 383

own gospel, he says, * According to my Gospel ;' "' and by Nice-
pborus, that it was published by the directioQ of Paul, and by
the author of the Synopsis attributed to Athanasiui, that it was
dictated by Paul.'

Of both these Gospels, also, it is said by Eusebius, that they,
together with that by St. Matthew, were shown to St. John, who
** approved of them, and confirmed the truth thereof by his own
testimony."*

The gospel of St Luke particularly needs some such testimony
to it to give it authority, as St. Luke himself only professes (as
it appears to me) to give the accounts that had been furnished
him by others who had been eye-witnesses and ministers of the
Wordr*

With respect to the Acts of the Apostles, we iKive not the same
express testimony to its having received Apostolical sanction, ex-
cepting in the Synopsis attributed to Athanasius, where it is
said to have been dictated by Peter ;* and as it seems probable
that both his Gospel and the Acts were written nearly about the
same time, and while Paul was at Rome, (whose companion and
disciple more especially Luke was,) it is not improbable that the
former part of tne Book of the Acts might be Peter's dictation,
though not the latter, which relates to scenes witnessed not by
Peter but by Paul and Luke himself. The principle, however,
being established by the passage of TertulUan above quoted,
that the works of Apostolical men needed the sanction of an
Apostle to establish their canonicity, it is not absolutely necessarj
for us to have direct testimony tp the fact, knaw4ng the princi-
ple upon which the primitive Church went in recognizing its
canonicity. And still further, we have in St Augustine a very
clear though indirect testimony, that such was the ground upon
which all these three books, the Acts included, were admitted
into the Canon. For speaking of the Gkwpel of St Luke, he
says, '* But he [Luke] has not only brought down his narrative to
the resurrection and ascension of the Lord, so as to have a place
worthy his labour among the four authors of the Evangelical
Scripture, but also afterwards so wrote the thinpthat were done
by tne Apostles, — those things, that is, which be considered to
be sufficient for establishing the faith of those who read or heard
them, — that his book alone was considered trustworthy in the
Church, in its account of the acts of the Apostles, all those being
rejected who dared to give an unfaithful account of the acts and

1 Eoteb. Hiat Eccl. Ub. ui. e. 4. (od. Vtl.)

t See Lardner at above, ppw 863, 6cm. And see Ireii. Rb. lii. c. 14.

s Enaeb. Hitt. Eccl. lib. iii. c 34.

4 Lake i. 1—3.

* Symoj^ Script 8acr. n. 76. Athan. Op. tom. ii. p. 303. ed. Beoed.

3S4 OBOVKDt FOR BBUSF

sayiDgs of the Apostles. Because (qutppe) Mark and Luke
wrote at a time at wbicfa they could be saDctionedr not odIj by
the Church of Christ but also &y the Apostles themselves yet
remaining in theflesh^^^

Sach« theut being the principle upon which the caDonidty of
these books was admitted by the primitive Church, we, adniit-
tiiig that principle, have only to inquire whether we have suffi-
cient testimony to induce us to believe that the Apostles <fid
commend them to the Church ftnr its guidance and instruction ;
and for this we have the fact of their admission into the canon
by the universal Church from the earliest times, as books that
had received that sanction (for this, as we have shown» was con-
sidered necessary for such admission) united with the direct tes-
tiinony borne to their having received that sanction by nvuiy of
the Fathers of the Church. And after we have received the
writings of the Apostles as inspired, I know no reason why we
should hesitate to admit this testimony as sufficient, seeine the
congruity of their statements with the revelation we have alrea-
dv adfloitted, to entitle them to a place in the canon; lor all
that we want to know is VSi^fact that they received AposUdical
sanction.

If our opponents tell us that we are not able to judge of their
statements by ^ tradition,'' I would remind them of the way in
which TertiUlian proved, in his controversy with Marcion, the
uncorrupted preservation of his copv of St. Luke's Gospel. *' If,"
saith hci *< the Apostolical Gospels have come down to us uncor*
rupted, and our copy of Luke's Gospel has such congruency
toith their rule as to remain vrith them in the churches, then it
is clear that Luke's Gospel has come down to us uncorrupted
until Marcion's sacrilege.'" If this argument is valid^ then it
neither was nor is necessary to go to tradition to judge of the in-
ternal evidence of these books, (which Mr. Keble would fain per-
suade us was the great test in the admission of books into the
canon); but a comparison of them with the Apostolical, will
show a eongruency with their rule^ and this is all that the in-
ternal evidence can do with respect to such books.

If asked, then, upon what grounds I receive any one of the
Jlpostolical books of the New Testament to be inspired, (for

1 Ifte Miteai non soIiib, dee. . . . . Eo qaif^ tempora seripfenmt Mateu et
Lqcm, qao non lolQni ab Eccleita Chiiili^ Teriym etttm ab ipeia adhue in oarne
manentibna ApoatoUa probari potnenint Aogott De content. EvangelitL lib. iv.
c 8. torn. iii. K S. p. 165.

1 8i enim ApoatoUoa Integra decnrrerant [decocarrenint], Locs anten quod
eat aecnndnm not adeo oongrait regnle eoram, nt cum illis apod eccletiat ma-
neat, jam et Lnc« oonttat iotegram decncarritae otqae ad facriiegium Marcionit.
TertnU. Ad?. Marc. if. 5. p. 416.

nuLT •uaiggiiEB It iiimxa». tM

we mwti of cotirte, begin with tboie written by the Apostles,)
I reply t mj first inqairy it as to the genuineness and uoGormpted
preservation of the book. The next as to the character of ttM
author^ and the evidence I have for kU inspiration. Finding
him to be one of the Apostles of our Lord, I inquire what evi-
dence I have as to the divine mission of our Lord, and having
established on internal and external evidence (as before stated)
the character of our Lord and his Apostles, I conclude in favour
of the inspiration of the book. And this method will an^iwer for
all the books of the New Testament, with the exception of the
Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles.

There are, indeed, as we have already intimated, some books
of the New Testament, for the genuineness of which the tesii-
mony of the primitive Church was not consentient Consequent*
ly, as far as patriatical testimony goes, there is an uncertainty in
the case. And hence^ I suppose, it is undeniable, that he who
firmly believes those books to be part of the canon, must have
some better foundation for his belief than patristical testimony,
or the voice of the Church. And there is nothing, perhaps,
which more strongly shows the inconsistencies to which Romish
views on these matters lead, than the fact, that while the Romish
Church of the present day maintains the canonicity of the Epis-
tle to the Hebrews as the infallible witoess of church-tradition^
and tells us, that from church-tradition only can we learn the
canon, it is a historical fact, that in the fourth century this in-
iallible witness of church-tradition maintained that it was not
canonical.

And here I would ask our opponents, upon what evidence
they receive these books. If they say upon patristical tradition^
they contradict their own tenet, that catholic consent alone b a
sufficient foundation for faith, and pin their faith upon the decia*
rations of that portion of the Catholic Church whose determina-
tions please them. If they admit the insufficiency of patristical
tradition in proof of the canonicity of these books, they Over-
turn the position against which we are here contending.

With respect to the three books not written by Apostles, I
would remark that for the two former we have the internal tes-
timony (to be judged of by its congruency with the writings of
the Apostles already admitted as inspired) which is not, I grants
a sufficient proof after the introduction of Christianity, united
with the direct and> express testimony of the Fathers, that they
were sanctioned and recommended by Apostles, and the unani-
mous testimony (as far as it is ascertainable) of the early Church
in their favour^ manifestly grounded on tbrirhavioff received
Apostolical samitioo. With respect to the third, viz* ttie Acts of
the Apostles, wt have the intenud testioKMiy (to be judged of at

VOL. I. K K

SM oBovxot toft amsr -

before) united with the unanimomtestioiooy of the early Church
in its favour, grounded manifestly on the suppositioD of its haYing
received such sanction.

TVith respect also to those books that are rejected, the qnestioB
may be at once determined historically. For instance, as to the

?retended Epistle of St Paul to the Liaodiceans, the case is clear*
here is no sufficient proof of its genuineness. And the writings
of those who were not Apostles have, of course, no pretence,
apart from very strong and direct evidence in their favour, to a
place in the Canon, and therefore need not be considered. And,
therefore, when Mr. Newman tells us, *< We include the second
Epistle of St. Peter, we leave out St Clement's Epistle to the
Corinthians, simply because the Church Catholic has done 80«^'
(p. 841, 2,) he might as well say that we leave out the Epistles
of Ignatius, or the works of Irensus, or anybody else, <' simply
because*^ the Fathers have done so. We neither put in nor
leave out ^' simply because^* the Fathers have done so, for I
would beg to ask whether, supposing that they had said, ^ we
grant that Clement's Epistle never received Apostolical sanction,
but we reckon it among the inspired books,^ that would have
been a sufficient reason for putting it into the Canon. If not, it
is not '* simply because^^ the Fathers admitted one and reiected
another that we do the same. We look to the grounds of tiieir
judgment

Such, then, is the evidence for the genuineness, uncorrupted
preservation, inspiration, and consequent canonicity of the New
Testament Scriptures. A brief sketch of its leading features
has been all that our limits in this place have allowed us to give.
But the more it is expanded into its details, the more complete
and convincing will it be found to be. And of this evidence the
tradition of the Church is but one part, and in the most import-
ant part of the question, namely, the divine origin iA the revela*
tion contained in the Scriptures, it is a part of the evidence
wholly insufficient by itselt to constitute a proof. The utnuMt
which it could do is to certify us of the genuineness and incor-
rupt preservation of these writings.

Further ; were we to admit that the patristical tradition we
possess is by itself sufficient to assure us of the genuineness and
incorrupt preservation of the writings of the New Testament,
(a question which it is unnecessary to enter into, because we have
other evidence on the point,) it would by no means follow that it
was a sufficient and certain witness of the oral teaching of the
Apostles so as to be a divine informant For it is a totally difier-
tnt thing; to hand down certain books a^ written or sanctioned
by the Aposttes, and to give a correct report of their oral teach*
iag, whenier eonoeniiiig doctrines or riles. In Ifae case of doc«

Iriiiet more eipecMdIy, it b evident that tcttimonj which migbt
be very fuScieot to establish the genuiDeDeai of the Scripture!
might be very insufficient to establiih the genuineness of doctri*
nal statements professing to come from the oral teaching of the
Apostles. I may believe fully the genuineness of a work upon
evidence which would be wholly insufficient to establish the cer-
tainty ot a doctrinal statement reported to me as having been
orally delivered by the author of that work. True» our oppo-
nents ground their proof of the correctness of the report oi it
to which they refer on its being delivered by all Catboucs every*
where, urging that such consent proves its correctness. But then,
as we have already observed, the proof of this consent is lamenta«
bly deficient, and in fact the claim to it evidently unfounded.
There is no such testimony for the Apostolical origin of any doc-
trine or rite not contained in Scripture, or any interpretation of
Scripture, as for the genuineness of the books of the New Tes-
tament, I believe I might eay, of all, but certainly of all but
those books whose genuineness was doubted of by some in the
primitive Church, in which case neither party can be assured
on the point by the testimony of patristical tradition. And were
we even to suppose such consent, its weight in reporting an oral
doqtrinal statement of the Apostles, however great, would be
very different, as we have already intimated, to the weight
which it has in bearing witness to a certain book having come
from the Apostles. Were we even . to .allow, then, that in b6th
cases there was consent in the remaining Fathers (which we by
no means do) and that the testimony was sufficient in the latter
case, it would by no means follow that it was so in the former.

Nay more, the character of the testimony is altogether dif-
ferent The witness borne to Scripture is direct ft is of this
nature. Such and such a book was written by such, an Apostle,
the book being cited under his name. But in the case of doc-
trines, interpretations, or practices, it is not in general pretend-
ed that the witness appealed to by our opponents is of this di-
rect kind ; and if such a pretence be made, facts will imme-
diately disprove its truth. There are few cases in which the
Fathers can be shown to have made generally any direct claim
to be delivering the oral teaching of the Apostles, and the two
in which such claims are made with the most confidence, and by
the greatest number, are lust those which are generally disal-
lowed, viz., the doctrine of the millenium and the practice of
giving the eucharist to infants.

Moreover, in the delivery of a doctrinal statement we have
to contend with all the difficulties arising from the carelessness
and inaccuracy of the writer, the indistinctness of his concept
tions, the bias to which his subject iacUned him, difficulties

888 MMvmmWfm

wKkh any ttian of art>€!rience 10 rach matters will know are
liuite sufficient to prevent the possibility of any proof of consent
even ivbere consent might exist.

And as to matters of fact and the rites and practices of the
church, what is there for which we have anything like consentient
patristical testimony for its Apostolical origin T We have, no
doubt, on many points patristical testinoony strongly confirmatory
of the correctness of our interpretation of Scripture in matters
both of doctrine and practice, but the only testinnony which
bears a Comparison with that for the genuineness of Scripture is
a direct ascription of the doctrine or practice to Apostolical
teaching.

Now, then, let our opponeuts no longer envelope themselves
in the smoke of fine words and vague generalities, but fairly tell
us what doctrine or practice, or what interpretation of Scrip-
ture can challenge such direct testimony to its Apostolical origin
from the Catholic Fathers as a body, and j9mn/ou/ the passages
in which such testimony is to be found. For instance, let
them point out the passages in which it is stated that the Apos-
tles directed that infants should be baptized, and then let them
compare with the evidence they find on this point the direct tes-
timonies of the Fathers to the authorship of the books of ^he
New Testament The evidence will be found to be of an alto-
gether different kind.

It is Quite true that the process by which the truth that Scrip-
ture is tiie word of God is arrived at, and the motives inducing
men to believe it, may be very different in different individuals.
One may begin at one part of the proof and another at another,
one may be chiefly influenced by one part and another by ano-
ther. And generally in the case of those who have been in-
structed by the Church, the teaching of the Church as to the
sacredness of these books is the introductory motive to belief in
them as the Word of God, so that any sul^equent inquiry re-
specting them is commenced with a feeling of reverent regard
towards them. And this feeling united unth a contemplation
of the internal testimony to the divine origin of the revelation
they contain, in the excellent nature and erocts of that revela-
tion, may, and often will, (always^ with the assistance of God's
Spirit) produce in the mind a belief in this truth, without any
such elaborate investigation of the evidence for it as that to whicn
we have just alluded.

Butt ii^ 1)0 case, and under no circumstances, can the tradition
of the Church be justly taken as sij^fficient proof of a matter
which involves a doctrine afiecting the very foundation upon
wluch the church stands. Even were tradition a safe guide, as
far as eoocena conveying to us the oral traditioos of the Apostles^

TSA9 sciirrvtB n nrtptxsv. iM

it WMid not at ftH ibUow that it was a gafe guide in tUf point,
for the doctrioe that Scripture is the \¥ord of God, oecetiarily
depeods upon the character of our Lord and his Apostles ; and
this carmot be prored by aay oral declaration of the Apostles to
that effect, and still less by any decree of the Church.

But, dottbtieai, for the genuineness and inspiration of those
particular writings which form the New Testament, there can
be no sufficient proof to the unassisted mind, without eood exter-
nal evidence ; and the external evidence we have for these truths,
appears to me, to be, as far as external evidence can ^ (for
those parts, at least, of the New Testament that have umversal
tradition in their favour,) conclusive.

And hence, it is the duty of every man who is qualified by edu-
cation to do so, to inquire into the evidences for the doctrine that
Scripture is the word of Qod ; and unless he does this, he cannot
possess that evidence of the truth of the doctrine of the inspira-
tion of Scripture which is necessary (putting out of sight the
work of the Spirit upon the heart) to form so complete a proof
of it as to leave no room for reason to cavil or hesitate.

It is quite true that God may so c6nvince the mind of any truth,
by a direct operation upon the soul, that such a man would be
euihy, and without excuse before him, for not believing it. But
in the first place, this can be no evidence to any one but himselfl
And further, knowing the discordant opinions that have been
maintained under the supposition of mxch an internal testimony,
it is clearly the duty of such an one to see that it is not opposed
by other reasonable testimony, and to ascertain, as far as he is
able, how far it is supported by other testimony. Granted that
he may not be able to see or understand all the evidence there
is in its favour, and that if he finds that it is not opposed by other
valid evidence, this may be enough for satisfaction in such a case,
et the inquiry it is his duty to make. And this I conceive to
e practically the situation of many Christians, who, from cir-
cumstances, are prevented from taking that clear and compre-
hensive view of the evidences for Scripture which could demons
strate its divine origin. Hei%, as far as human assent could go,
the ground for belief is lessened ; but, in the caso which we are
now supposing, the work is one of Divine power, and therefore
the satisfaction possessed by the mind proportionably strong.
Nevertheless, the same reason which makes it incumbent upon
such a man to look beyond the internal impressions produced
upon bis own mind in favour of the truth, either by the intrinsic
power of the word or by divine influence, goes to show that the
inquiry should be carricKl as far as the inquirer is able to investi-

Ste the subject It is the duty and the privilege of one who
th that religion is his chief concern, thus to investigate the

c

2M mmmsfmn fos muM9

prooft fiir the dteUw origin or the Scriptium^ anAflo 4o tireflfthea
and fortify hk faith in what they reveal.

Instead, however, of wishing men to inake sueh inqouiesy our
opponents urge them against so doing as both mmeeetsary and
dangerous, and that, not on account of the power of the internal
evidence of the word or the work of the Spirit^ but as if, forsooth,
it were an affront to ** the Church." Men are to be content to
receive all on faith in the (iictum of ^* the church." Their lan-
gonge is, in fact. You must shut your eyes and walk straightfor-
ward as your ecclesiastical guide tells you, and then all wiU be
right. Only be sure not to open your eyes and look where you
are going, for in that case, we will not answer for tlw consequen-
ces; for we can assure you that some people who have used their
eyesight, have made mistakes. Aud in truth, boldine the opin-
ions they do (which we shall notice presently )| as to we nature
of these evidences, and the state in which meu are left, it is no
wonder that such is their advice.

But, say our opponents, what are men in general, particularly
the illiterate, to do, who are unable to investigate the evideo<;e8
for this truth ? I return the question, and shall probably be told
that the illiterate tnitst believe upon the testimony of the church.
But to the illiterate man, the testimony of the church is merely
the testimony of the individual who happens to be bis pastor.
Will any man say that such testimony is a fit and proper ground
for faith 7 He is not left to such a fragile reed to lean upon. He
has a testimony to the truth that Scripture is the word of God
infinitely superior to this-^I mean in the internal evidence which
that Word brings with it of its divine origin in the excellent na-
ture and effects of the revelation contained in it ; which, when
applied to the heart by the Spirit, is known and felt to be the
truth of God. And this testimony of the Holy Spirit to the writ-
ten Word, given either directly, or indirectly through the revela-
tion contained in it, seals it with an impress not to be mistaken
by those to whom it is vouchsafed, and without which, faith in
Scripture, as the word of God, is a mere historical faith, alto-
gether unprofitable to any saving purpose.

I hope our opponents are not prepared to deny this, thought
alas, of such operations of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of indi-
viduals, we hear scarcely anything in their writings ; and I will,
therefore, take the opportunity to call their attention to another
passage from one of their own witnesses, Dr. Jackson. ** The
Holy Spirit who instructed the first messengers of the Gospel with
the true sense and knowledge of the truths therein revealed, and
furnished them with diversity of tongues to utter them to the
capacity of divers nations, can and doth^ throughout all succeed-
ing ages, continue his gifts, whether of tongues or others, what<»

Merer ara MCtMHy ibr conveying the tnie ieoM and meftning
ef sttTing tnith alieadjr tsii^ht, miffiDUTiiLT /i> /Ae hearts of all
•ucby ki eyerj natioD, as are aot for their rin judged unworthy
of bis lociety ; of aH ancb as resist not his rootioot to follow the
lusts of the flesh. And as ibr men altogether illiterate, that can-
not read the Scriptures in any toi^e, we do not hdd them bound
(nor, indeed, are any) to believe absolutely or expressly every
clause or sentence in the sacred canon to be the infallibie oracle
of Giod's Spirit otherwise than is before expressed ; but unto the
several matters or substance of truth contained in the principal
parts thereof, their souls and spirits are so surely tied and fastened,
that they can say to their own consciences, wheresoever these
men that teach us these good lessons, learned the same themselves,
most certain it is, that originally they came from God ; and by
the gracious providence of that God, whose goodness they so often
mention, are they noW come to us. Such are, the rules and
tes^mooies of God's providence, the doctrines or real truths of
original sin, of our misery by nature, and freedom by grace;
such are, the articles of Christ's passion and the effects thereof,

of the resurrection and life everlasting .Many other

points there be, not of like necessity or consequence, which unto
men specially altogether unlearned, or otherwise of less capacity,
may be proposed as the infallible oracles of God ; unto some of
which it is not lawful for them to give so absolute and firm
irrevocable assent as ttiey must do to the former^ because
they cannot discern the truth of them in itself or for itself
or with their own eyes^ asy it is supposed^ they did the truth
of the former:' (Book ii. Sect. 1. c. 2.)

With respect to the nature of that faith by which we believe
Scripture to be the word of God, it is said by the Romanists
that it most be a divine faith, that is, one that stands on divine
testiinony ; because, in all the articles of religion, faith must have
divine testimony to rest upoo.

The object in view is to make the testimony of the Church
the ground upon which our belief of this truth rests. And they
make use of this proposition in two ways; first, to make us the
humble servants of '^ the Church" for a knowledge of this truth;
and also to build upon it the argument that the testimony of the
Church must be divine, because otherwise we should have no
sufficient ground for a belief in this necessary truth.

Now it is quite true that, for all the truths of religion, we
need divine testimony as the foundation for faith. But the ques-
tion whether this or that is a divine testimony, is not, strictly
speaking, any part of religion, but rather a previous question.
Religion condsts in that which is revealed The revelation itself
includes aU the doctrines of reHgion, strictly speaking. And he

who beUerei the Mvelatioa contaioed in the Scrtotirci, thov^
be might never lee the Scriptures, (the cast with not a few in
antienty and perhaps some in modern times,} is as much m a state
of salvation, as he who enjoys the higher privilege of possessing
the Scriptures and faith in their inspiration.

Moreover, if it were absolutely necessary that before we could
believe any testimony to be divine, we most have divine testi-
mony that it i8«so, then there could be no proof to be had of a
divine testimony; each one requiring another to prove it, and so
on, ad infinitum.

We may here remarlc, however, that even apart from the di-
vine testimony vouchsafed in the work of the Holy Spirit upon
the heart) convincing of this truth, there was originally divine
testimony to the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. For
this doctrine follows from that of the divine mission of our Lord,
and the inspiration of his Apostles ; and, for that doctrine, we
have the testimony of the Father at Christ's baptism, the mira*
cles wrought by our Lord and his Apostles, the testimony of pro-
phecy, and the power and success of the Gospel ; all divine tes-
timonies, whether men are disposed to admit them as such, or
not. For Crod bore witness, we are told, to the Apostles, with
signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy
Ghost ; (Heb. iL 4.) and confirmed the word with signs folbw-
ing. (Mark xvi. 20.)

It is certainly a matter for consideration with one who is con-
sidering the evidences for revelation, whether he has sufficient
grouncte to admit them to be divine testimonies or not And this
u a question, with which every man has to deal, who is made
acquainted in any way with any thing that professes to be a di-
vine testimony. He must seek for some rational grounds of con-
viction that such testimony is divine ; and the motives inducing
him to believe that such is the case, ought to be such as approve
themselves to the reason Of maBkind. To judge the evidences
upon which the claim of any thing to be a divine testimony
rests, is the proper province of reason ; whilci upon the revela-
tion itself, it is exercised only so far as to ascertain that there b
nothing directly contrary to its dictates; and accepts with hu-
mility niuch that may be in its full proportions innnitely above
it, transcending the powers of human reason, as much as the
Divine nature does the human. The resohition of the question,
Upon what grounds do I believe any thing to be a divine testi-
mony, '' must be fetched,'' says Bishop Stillingfleet, ** from those
rational evidences whereby a divine testimony must be distin-
guished from one merely human and fallible.''^

> Oiif . 8. iL S.

TKAT WOKSnVWM tB imVlWBD*

It iff quite true tb&t Ibis dhFHie ttMmom comei to ut in part
ooiy in the report of 6ilKble men, and so mr loses a portion of
its force. Bat still there was originallj divine testimony to the
inspiration of the Scriptures; and the report of that testimony is
an important evidence on the point to us. But the only direct
divine testimony to the point we how enjoy, is that of the Holy
Spirit upon the heart.

The Komanists, however, not satisfied with there having been
originally divine testimony to the inspiration of Scripture, main-
tain that the testimony upon which every man believes this
truth, must be divine ; when, in fact, apart from the direct wit-
ness of the Holy Sj>irit in the heart, no man now has more than
a human report oi such testimony.

Upon the whole, then, let us observe what is the state of the
case in this matter. The great and important question is.
Whether the religion revealed to us in the Scriptures of the
New Testament, is from Grod. And the great evidence in favour
of the affirmative, is to be found in the excellent nature and
effects of that religion, which may, even to the natural mind,
and certainly will to the spiritually enlightened mind, produce
a conviction of its divine origin. The sincere inquirer after the
truth, therefore, to whom the gift of the Spirit is promised, is not
left in this matter to depend upon any human testimony. His
faith is grounded upon far better evidence, even the internal
power of the Word, sealed in his experience with the witness of
the Spirit to its divine origin. And this is, in fact, the very
marrow and substance of the question of the inspiration of Scrip-
ture ; and all other points are in the comparison of but secon-
dary importance.

But this, it may be said, affects only those parts of Scripture
in which the great truths of Christianity are delivered ; and does
not even here show more than the divine origin of the truths so
delivered ; whereas it is of importance to know to what extent
we have divine testimony on the subject of religion ; and wheth-
er the Scriptures, as they stand, proceeded from the pen of in-
spired authors.

Now I will not venture so to limit the operations of God's
Spirit in the hearts of the faithful, as to affirm that such is the
case. But thus much I freely admit, that it is the duty of those
who are capable of making the inquiry, to ascertain the evidence
that exists upon these points.

Here, then, comes in the question of the canon ; and we have
already shown that for most of the books of the New Testament
we have, besides the internal testinoony, various testimonies to
their Apostolical origin or sanction, among which one is the
tuuuiinmn witness of the aattent records of the diurch; and for

/

Um other bocria, limiisr tatimony, except that patriitiwl tra-
ditkn ia not uDanimouB on the poiot, and coniequeDtl; the ez<
temal teattiaony not §o iodubitsblj in their fiirour, aa for the

For ttte foTBter, the jnoral evidence that they are the genuine
writinKB of the Apo«tlee, ia, we Md, web ai to leave no doubt of
tbe mind of any impartial penoD. For the latter
[/ evideDce is not equally conviocit^. Tbe burthen
at be thrown more upon the iuternal evidence ; and
e of God's Holy Spirit lougbt to enable ns to judge
r to auerl that any ecclesiastic a 1 affirmation at tbe
' can be a sufficicot ground for faith in a matter in
rimitive church was divided) may obtain for a man
of being a very bold and confident friend of *' the
it not that of a very wise or very trust-worthy man.
Hi we conceive, lo be the foundation upon which we
have to rest in this question- For the divine origin of the reli-
gion delivered tous in tbeScriptures, in all its great and import-
ant features, every sincere inquirer after the truth has not only
the internal witness of its excellence, but also divine testimony.
The Holy Spirit works conviction within him, and gives him a
knowlei^ and assurance of the truth. And 1 tee not how,
even without further divine assistance, when he couples this tet-
tbe evident claims of the writers of tbe Scriptures
ilance in their delivery of the truth, he can doubt of
n of those parts of Scripture, at least, in which tbe
of Christiauity are delivered. But, besides this, he
y the whole of the Scriptures, moral evidence, of tbe
ing kind, of their having proceeded from inspired

I, IB sufficient ground for faith to rest upon. It is at
no uncertainties. It baa a foundation amply sufficient for its sup-
port ; and were it not so, it would not be faith.

But, alas! our opponents to induce us, if possible, to embrace
their notions on the subject of " tradition," seem willing to leave
Christianity itself without any lirm foundation to rest upon.
They are quite aware of the weakness of the reed upon which
they are leaning when using patristical tradition for the purpose
to which they apply it But rather than give it up, they have
laboured to show that Christianity itself standa on no better
ground, and that the Christian's faith is a mere persuasion, en-
compassed with doubts and difficulties, such as results from a
baiaJKe of opposing probabilities !

" The rule of Vincent," says Mr. Newman, " is not of a matbe-
BMtical or demonstrative character, but moral, and requires prac*
Ileal judgownt and good seme to apply iL . . . JI»w many Fatben,

THAI" fOBifrvRa IB nrtPissD.

how many plft€e9, how mntij iratamtes oomtitate a fbifilment of
the test propoied ? // i>, then^ft^m the nature qf the case^ a
condition tt>hieh never can be satisfied as fully as it might
have been : it admitB of various and unequal application in va-
rious instances, and what degree of application is enough nsust
be decided ht the same principles which guide us in the conduct
of life, which determine us in politics/ or trade, or war, tohich
lead us to accept revelation at all^ voa^ which wb havb but

PROBABILITY TO SHOW AT MOST, NAY, TO BELIEVE IN THE

EXISTENCE OP AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR/' (pp.
68 — 69.) *' We, for our part, have been taught to consider that
faith in ite degree as well as conduct, must be guided bj proba^
bilities, and that doubt is ever our portion in this l\fe. We
can bear to confess that other systems have their «oanswerable
arguments in matters of detail, and that we are hut striking a
balance between difficulties existing on both sides ; that w^
are following as the voice of Ood, what on thb whols we have
reason to think such." (p. 129.) And, therefore, the Romanists,
who justly think that doubt is incompatible with faith,^ and have,
therefore, very unnecessarily and unwarrantably invented the
doctrine of infallibility to remove it, are told that they have
troubled themselves very unnecessarily about the matter, (p.
103.) And we are told that '' according to English principles,
faith has all it needs in knowing that God is our Creator and
Preserver, and that he MAY IF IT SO HAPPEN, have spoken.''
. . . '< If we are asked hovr faith differs from opinion^ we reply in
its considering his being, governance, and will, as a matter otper^
sonal interest and importance to us, not in the degree of light
or darkness under which it perceives these truths" ....
**Nai/f doubt may even be said to be implied in a Christianas

faith To require such definite and clear notices of

truth, b to hanker after the Jewish law, a system of less myst^
rious information, as well as less ositerous faith," And he
says, that ** Scripture is full of instances in point." And what
does the reader suppose is the instance he gives? That of our
Saviour himself, who, he tells us, '* scarcely once declared to in-
qutrers that he was the Christ," but " left them to gather the
great truth for themselves how they could, with whatbvbr db^
GRfiE OF CRRTAiifTT,"d&c., implying that no evidence was given
sufficient to exclude doubt. (See the whole of pp. 103—5.)
And a writer in the principal organ of our opponents, the British
Critic, replying to the objection that the evidence for tradition
is insufficient to produce assurance of its truth, meets the objec-
tion on the ground that there is not (as he wouM have us be*

I a«« PlniSM*! IiMiinbfo 6oepiiciiRi ai tbt .Ohuf^ •! BoqM^!£. U

Mt oa«vnM POB Bnnup

lieve) iikhiUtmUe erMeoct fer Scripivra. (Ant Grit tor April»
p. 467.) And tbb remark 10 made apparentlj od the gvoaiid
that there are those who object to the tufficieDcy of tut evi-
dencei just as thej tell us tliat Scriptare mml be obtcare, be-
cause lome people misinterpret it

And thus the Author of the 85th Tract says* ** How do vm
know that the whole Bible is the word of Ck>d 7 HappUj) ai
present, we are content to believe this, because we have beea
80 taught It is our great blessedness to receive it on faiilu .
... It does seem to me preposterous to confess that free iiv
quiry leads to scepticism, [who confesses thisT] and scepticism
makes one less happy than fieuth; and yet that such free inquiry
is right What is rights and what is happy ^ cannot^ on the
long runf and on a large scale, be diyoined. To follow truth
can never be a subject of regret ;free inquiry does lead a man
to regret the days ^his child-like faith, [vhicb shows who it
is that thinks free inquiry does lead to scepticism, and therefore
wisely advises us to shut our eyes] therefore^ it is not following
truth." (pp. 72, 3.) And after having depreciated, as iar as pos-
sible* the testimony we have for the canon of Scripture, in order
to make it appear not more than what we have for any of his
favourite doctrines, (pp. 75, &s.) and collected together ** start*
lingj" passages of Scripture as a set-off to anything startling we
may find in his traditional doctrines ; {pp. 86 &«.) and, at last,
Concluded that ^ the canon of Scripture rests on no other founda*
tion than [what he calls] the cathoKc doctrines," and that *' in
both cases we believe mainly because the church o/rum fourtb
AND yiPTH oBHTURiES unanimously believed ; (p. 102.) feeling,
of course, the utter weakness of the foundation to which he has
reduced both, boldly tells us that in the intercourse between our
Lord and the Pharisees, the latter '^ were bid to believe on weak
arguments andfanciful deductions ; (p. 11 1.) and having thus
paved the way for his conclusion, sums up all with the following
observations, — ^^ In connexion with what has been said, observe
the singular coincidence, or rather appositeness, of what Scrip-
ture enjoins, as to going hj faith in religious matters. The difi^
cutties which exist in the evidenccy give a deep meaning to
the exhortation. Scripture is quite aware of the difficulties.
Objectioas can bebroueht against its own inspiration, its can-
onicity; against revealed doctrines, as in the case of the Jews ;
against the Messiahrfrip of Jesus Christ It knows them all ; it
has provided against them by recognizing them. It says ^ Be-
lieve,' because it knows that unless we believe there is no means
of divine kiowledae. If we will doubt, that is, if we will not
allow evidence to be sufficient which merely resttlts in a ba»
UmeeontkesUe qf revelatim^; if we wiU^etssBiiBe that lio

THAT Kmtnvnn n inspirbd. 387

evidence is enough to prove revealed doctrine but what if over-
powering ; if we will not go by evidence in which TasaR are

(so TO say) TBaBB CHAVCB8 WOK REVELATION, AffD OHLY TWO

AQAiNST, we cannot be Christiaos, we shall miss Christ, either in
his inspired Scriptures, or in his doctrines, or in his ordinances."
'' Lave is the parent qf faith. We beUeve in things toe see
not from lave qf them, • • • • Faiih is reliance an the ward
qf another; the ward qf another is, in itself a faint evidence
compared toith that qf sight or reason. It is influential
only when we cannot da without it. Why should not the
church be divine? The burden of proof surely is on the other
side. I will accept her doctrines, and her rites, and her Bible—*
not one, and not the other^ but all — till I have clear proof that
she is mistaken. // 1^ / feel, Ood^s will that I should do so;,
and besides I love these her possessions — / love her Bible ^ her
doctrines, and her rit^, and therefore i believe." (pp.
112—16.

If this is not the ne plus ultra of enthusiasm, where can we
find it ? And why, I would ask, mav not 'the Pagan or MobaiB«>
medan be allowed the same answer? I am a Pagan, because I
love the doctrines and rites of Paganism^ I am a Mohammcf
dan because I hve the doctrines and rites of Mohammed. The
answer is just, as reasonable in their mouths, as in that of the
Christian. That there is no influential saving belief in the doc*
trines of the Gospel, without some love of them, and therefore
that we need the love of God to be shed abroad in the heart by
the Holy Spirit, is indeed most true; and thankful should we
have been to have seen a recognition of this truth ; but for a
man to make faith depend upon a mere feeling of love, and sei>
riously to maintain that if we came to investigate the evidence
for our religion, and weigh the arguments pro and con^ we should
find that there was a mtre balance in its favour^ in the prO^
portion qf three for, and ttvo against ; and that, too, where
all the *' love" and prepossessions of the writer are professed^
engaged on the side of the scale which he tells us does butjusi
preponderate^ is indeed a fearful specimen of recklessness in
the support of a hypothesis. As if rather than not maintain it,
he would endanger the cause of Christianity itself.

Thus, in their wild zeal for tradition, they are sapping the
very foundations of Christianity. The doctrine which they have
bereadvancedf is precisely thai which is calculated to drive men
either into Kominnismy in order to find something which at lea^t
professes to relieve mep frow 4<Hibt and unpertaioty, or. into in-
fedelity, , :,....

J)Io wonder that any one lillKiuJd discouragia men from lookiBf
,'inVi> 4bie eyi4^<^.A!'' f^t^ponv^pd the inqMratiop nf , Uie Qihlt,

VOL. 1. ' L L

398 OROtJKM ton BELIEF

who thinks that there is no better evidence than a nmBJl balance
of probabilities for them.

As to Mr. Newman's remark in the first of the passages (Juoted
abore^ that there is but probability for the existence of an In-
telligent Creator, there are manj Deists who would not have
made it

And to give weight to these views, he has ventured 'even to
quote Bishop Butler as giving his sanction to them. For after
the first of the passages given above, where he speaks of having
^probability at most to show for revelation, he adds, ^ This
character, indeed, of Vincent's canon, will but rcoomm enp it to
the disciples of the school of Butler, from its agreement with the
analogy of nature.'' So that the fact here supposed that the
evidence for revelation is doubtful^ is actually a recomTnenda*
tion to our belief of it, if we agree with Bishop Butler. From
which it of course follows, that the more doubtful the evidence for
such a matter, the better claim it has upon our belief. And this
monstrwn korrendum fathered upon that acute reasoner,
Bishop B«tler. And on what grotind ? Because Bishop Butler
has in his ** Analogy" taken upon him t6 show the infidel that,
even if the evidence for Christianity were not such as to afibrd
faim a proof that he could consider beyond exception certain, still
H amounts to such a degree of probability, that he is doing unwise
iy in such a matter not to act according to its dictates ; just as in
many other matters he would himself reckon it unreasonable
not to act upon evidence, which, nevertheless, he did not feel to
be free from the possibility of cavil. Bishop Butler not only

! rives no countenance to the notion that he sympathized in the
eeling that the evidence for Christianity was open to any just
cavil or reasonable difficulty, but clearly shows that he had no
isuch notion. For while he invariably puts such views only into
the mouths df his opponents, as, for mstance, ** Persons who
speak qf the evidence o( religion as doubtful^ and of this sup^
posed doubtfulness as a positive argument against it, should be
put upon considering^^ &c. (Pt 2. c. 6.) ; and again, "If, upon
consitieration of refigton, the evidence of it shduld seem to any
persons doubtful, in the highest supposable degree, even this
doubtful evidence will, however, put them into a general state
of probation*^ (lb.), he speaks so clearly as to show that he re-
garded the evidence for Christianity in a very diffbrent light.
'^Though," he says, ** this proof p.e. -miracles] is rca/ and con-
clusive, yet it is liable to objections, and may be run up into difil-
culties ; which, however, persons who are capable not only of
talking of, but of really seeing, are capable of seeing through^
that is, not of dearing up and answering (hem so as to satisfv
« their oiriorfty 9 for oTiuch kndwhM%e We are not ckpiabfe #ith

THAT •CBinV^K. » UTSPXKBO. - 1^9

respect to any one thiiur in natur# ; but capable of teeing that
the proo/is toot lost in these difficulties, or destroyed by these ob*
jections." (lb.) Again, speaking of the evidence for Christianity
from prophecy, he reminds bis opponents that ** those persons
who have thoroughly examined it, and some of them were men
of the coolest temper^ greatest .capacities, and least liable to im-
putations of predjudice, insist upon it as determinaiefy conclu^
sive" (Pt. 2« c. 7.) '* The truth of our religion, like the truth
of common matters, is to be iu<i^ed of by all the evidence taken
together. And unless the whole series of things which may be
alleged in this argumei^t, and every particular in it, can reason-
ably be supposed to have been by accident, (for here the stress
of the argument for Christianity lies,) then is the truth of it
proved.^^ (lb*)

It is difficult to conceive how Bishop Butler's meaning could
be so misapprehended as it has been by Mr. Newman. And
one cannot but regret, for the honour of our church, that such
statements as we are now commenting on, should ever have seen
the light, from the quarter from which they come.

If Mr. Newman had confined himself to the observation, that.
Bishop Butler had shown that it was reasonable to act some-
times upon evidence which though open to some cavils, rendered
any thing probable, and that consequently patristioal tradition
was not to be despised because it was open to some cavils, that
would have be^n more like a /air application of the bishop's
mod^ of reasoning. But even then the argument would not
have been tenable. For the things which Bishop Butler is speaking
of are the highest verities of religion. Now it might be very true
that, as it respects the great doctrines of Christianity, doubtful
evidence might be a sufficient inducement to reasonable men to
act as persons convinced of their truth, and yet it would not
follow that the same evidence sliould be considered sufficient for
other matters. He who had once seen the tide return after ebb-
ing, would infer the possibility of its returning again, and upon
that inference mi^ht reasonably act as if it certainly would do
so, because his life was at stake ; but if the utmost which the
return of the tide could do would be immaterial to him, thei^
there would be no absurdity in his waiting for further evidence.

Moreover, the two cases are altogether different. In the one
case a religion is pfiered us, which it is alleged is the only guide
to happiness in another world, and the belief of which, even if
it should turn out not to be .true, can do us no harm, but, on the
contrary, will promote our real happiness here. We may rea-
sonably act, therefore, as if it were true, even on doubtfbl evi-
dence. But, in the other case, statements are brought to us, claim-
ing to be reports of the oral teaching of the Apostles, which, while

490 OBovmt fcm nsLnir

tb^ do mk pretend to be of vital importance, majr be bat tor*
-ruptioni of Christianity^ atid therefore be more or tern injorioui
torn.

The argmnent of Bishop Butler, indeed, if tUtis strained to
matters to which it was never intended to applj, loses all its force.
For it might be applied to any thing we meet with in one or two
of the Fathers. Such things (it mieht be said) beii^ thus men-
tioned, there is a degree of probability that they had an Apos-
tolical origin, and therefore, as Bishop Butler tells us that in re-
ligious matters a degree of probability u a sufficient ground lor
us to act upon, we are bound to act as if these statements were
certainly Apostolical. But who sees not, that such an applica-
tion of bis argument would be absurd t

Mr. Newman is fond of appealing to Bishop StilKngfleet, as
one who held his views. Let me call his attention^ then, to the
following extract from that able and truly Protestant Prelate's
writings.

** Those evidences/' says the bishop, ** whereby a divine tes-
timony may be known, must be such as may not leave men's
minds in suspense^ but are of their own nature convincing
proofs of it ... I know it is a great dispute among many,
whether those things which are usually called the common
motives of faith, do of their own nature only induce a probable
persuasion of the truth of the doctrine as probable which they
are joined with, or else are they sufficient for the producing a
firm assent to the doctrine as true T I grant they are not de-
monstrative so as to enforce assent, for we see the contrary by
the experience of all ages ; but that thev are not sufficient foun-
dation for an unprejudiced mind to establish a firm assent upon,
is a thing not easy to be granted ; chiefiy upon this account, that
an obligation to believe doth lie upon every one to whom these
evidences of a divine testimony are sufficiently discovered . . .
• . If, therefore, there be no evidences given sufficient to carry
(he minds of men beyond mere probability, what sin can it be in
those to disbelieve, who cannot'be oMiged to believe as true what
is only discovered as probable. I cannot, therefore, see how an
obligation to believe a divine testimony is consistent with their
opinion who make the utmost which any outward evidences ccm
extend to, to be only the bare credibility of the doctrine attes-
ted by them. lean very well satisfy myse(fu>ith the ground
and reason why the more subtle wits of the Church of Some
do cLssert this ; for if nothing else can be produced by all
motives of faith but only a probable persuasion of the truth
of Christian doctrine^ then here comes in the fairest pre*
tencefor the infallibility cf their churchy for otherwise they
tell us we can have no foundation far a divine faith ; fat

/^w wn thmt, ht a /oundatien f^r divine faiih whi^h cttn
ftdch no higher than a moral inducement^ and beget only a
probable pereuaeion of the credibility qf the doctrine qf
Christ } But on what account those who disown the ir^falli*
bility rf the Church qf Rome in the proposal qf matters qf
faith^ should yet consent with those qf it in an hypothesis
taken yp in probability f merely out qf subserviency to that
most advantageous piece qf the mystery qf iniquity ^ is not
easy to resolve. Unless the over-fondness qf some upon the
doctrine qf the Schools more thon qfthe Gospel f hath been the
occasion qf if. For haw agreeable can that opinion be to the
Gospel, which so evideptlj put« the modt iekmiye^ weapons into
the hands of mibelief? For« doubtle^, in the judgment of anj
rational person a n^^re probable perduasion of the credibility of
the doctrine pf Chriat» where aa assent to it as true ia required,
can never be looked on as an act of faith ; for if my assent to
the truth of the thing he according to the strength of the argn*
orients inducing me to believe, and these arguments do onlj
prove a. probability of divine testimony, my assent can be no
stronger than to ft thipg merely probable ; which is, that it may
be or not be true, which is not properly assent, but a suspending
our judgments till ^m^ convincing argument be produced on
either side .,»..». 1 cannot conceive that meUf otherwise
learned and sober, should with so much confidence assert, that
the rational evidences of a divine testimony are insufficient to
prove a doctrine true» unless it be from hence, that they find
that, notwithstaoiUng the strongest evidences, many persons con-
tinue in unbelief. For, say they, ' if these arguments werescien-
tifical and demonstrative (a%tbey speak) of the truth of the dec-
trine attested by them, then all persons to whom they are pro*
pounded must certainly believe/ But this is very easily answered;
for we speak not of internal but putward evidence ; not of that
in the subject but of the object* qr more fully of the reason of tbt
thing, and not the event in us ; for, doubtless there may be un-
doubted truth and evidence in qnanj things which soom persons
either cannot or will not undeoitand. If Epicurus should con-
tend still that the sun and stars are no bigger than they seem te
be* will it hence follow that there can be no rational demoostra*
tion of the contrary? Nay, if the way. of demonstration be
offered him, and telescopes put into his hands, yet if be be re-
solved to pnaintain his credit, and therefore, his opinion, and will
not use the telescopes, or suspect still they are intended only to
deceive .his sight, what possible way will there be of convincing
such a person, though the thing be in itself demonstrable ? Now,
if the strength of prejudice, or maintaining of credit, can prevail
so much in matters pf mathetnAtiral evidence, to withhold assent.

4*1 «iM»Mtoi^Mi laiumf

what power may we think a aMmpt interest may hiive upon the
tmderitanding, as to the arguments which tend to prove the truth
of that doetriiie which is do repugnant to that carnal interest
which the heart is already devoted to ! Our Mewed Saviour hath
bimseir given us so full an account of the original and causes of
unbelief in the persons he conversed with, that that may yield us
a sufficient answer to this objection. He tells us, the ground of it
was not want of light, imy, iAere was Kghi sti^ffieient to eon*
vince any^ but that those to whom the light came loved dark-
ness rather than it, because their deeds were evil. Johniii. 19. •
• . . [And he proceeds to refer to John v. 44.|\Matt. vii. 14.,
John y. 40.J • • . • When the most convincing miracles were
used, they would rather attribute them to the Prince of devils
than to the power of God. (Matt. zL 94.) And though our
Savkmr presently, by rational and demonstrative arguments, did
prove the contrary to their faces, yet we see thereby it was a
resolution not to be convinced, or yield to the truth, which vras
the cause why they did not believe ... It would be no difficult
-task to discover in all those instances wherein the unbelief of
men is discovered in the New Testament, that the persons guilty
of it did not proceed like rational men, cf such as demred truths
but were wholly carried away through passion, interest, pre*
jodice^ disaflfectioo, or some other cause of that nature, which
may give us a sufficient account why tliose persons did not believe
although there might be clear and undoubted evidence to per-
suade them to it But although I assert that these rational evi-
ilences are sufficient arguments of the truth of the doctrine they
<ome to manifest, yet 1 would not be so understood that I there-
by resolve all religion into a mere act of reason and knowledge,
and that no more power is required in the understanding to be-
lieve the Gk)6pel than to believe a mathematical demonstration ;
which is another objection some lay in the way of this opinion,
but it is not difficult getting over it For the sufficiency which
i attribute to rational evidence is not absolute and simple, but in
4U0 genere as an objective evidence."^

Such is the language of Bishop Stillingfleet on this matter, and
we see from it that this doctrine of Mr. Newman appeared to
him to be one which admitted the fairest pretence for introdu-
cing the Infallibility of the Church of Rome.

Bat, in truth, our opponents seem to think that where there
is indubitable evidence for anything there cannot be faith; that,
in a word, faith is some indescribable act of the mind by which
its assent is given upon evidence not sufficient to exclude doubt,
and that there must be some degree of doubtfulness in the evi-

1 Stillingfleet's Originet Sacra. Bk. ii. ch. 8. at the end.

THA9 mmnvMt n uwuup. 4M

4eiice to OMike it faith. For fiir* KeUe telb in that ^ endenct
complete in all its parts leaves no room for faith." (p. 82.) And
again, ** Perhaps had the evidence for it [L e. the Nicene tradi-
tion] been more overpowering, no room would have been left for
the requisite trial of our fait£" (p. 146.) So that if a few per-
sons were to tell us that there is such a place as RomOy we might
believe that there was» and that would be faith, but if the evi*
dence was so stroi^ in favour of there being such a place that it
was in reason indubitable that there was« then there would be
no room for faith. Mav I ask what there would be room for 7

I know not what faith can be but an assent of the mind upon
that rational evidence which excludes doubt. For it is surelj
imposnble to believe a thine, and yet be doubtful about it at the
same time. It may be difficult,^ and perhaps impossible, to de«
cide the precise amount of moral evidence calculated to bring
conviction to the mind of an individual, but surely to maintain
that a man maj believot nay is bound to believe, a thii^ upon
evidence which you allow not to be iodubitoble, is beyoiMl mea-
sure strange. ^ Both the strength of the argument,'' says Bishop
Stiilingfleet, when meeting a precisely similar statement from one
of bis Romish adversaries, ** hinder me at all from believing what
1 did not see 7 I had rather thought, the more obscure the ob-
ject had been, the greater necessity there had been of strong
evidence to persuade a man to believe . . . the greatest clear-
ness and evidence ae to the testimony is not repugnant to
the nature qf/aith,*^ — *^ We thipk it our duty to believe firmly
whatever Qod saith, but withal we think it our duty to inquire
carefully whether God hath said it or no before we believe ; and
according to the evidence we have of ^ this we assent to the for-
mer."*

I will add only (as there is no autboritv with our opponents
like the Fathers) a passage from the excellent Hilarv. Speak-
ing of St. Paul uring the words ^* according to the Scriptures,''
when adverting to the death and resurrection of Christ, (1 Cor.
XV. 3, 4,) he says that he did it to give security for the doctrine
to enable us to resist objections, wnen Christ Jesus was under-
stood so to die and rise again as was written. ** For faith knows
no danger t (or, uncertainty); and every Christian confession is
sqfe in the bidden mystery of God.""

I 8fe Piteoorte in VindicaiioD of ProtefUnt Grounds of Faith, pp. 887-— S90.

s Pia adversus calamniam reaiatendi aecaritate propoaita, cam ita nori ae r«-
•nrfere Chiiatua Jeava intalligandoa oaaet, qaaliter aoripiua eat .Van enim
habet Jid€$ periemlmm : at omnia pla profaaaio in occalto aaeramento Dai tnta
aat. HiL. Jh Tiin. Ub. x. h 87. ool. 1078.

44i

CHAPTER Vn.

THAT HOLT gOftlFTVBB I8 OUlEt 80LB DIVINBLT-RBVXALED StTLB OP

FAtTR Aim niAcnoB, Ain> bolb inpallibls iiTOOB or oohtbotbb-
aiBB m sBueiON, and is ooiraBQifENTLT iir tn obedbnda op bk-

IiSaiOir THB BOLB A17TH0BITT WHICH BIHDS rBM OOttSCIBlfOK TO BB-

UBp m WHAT IT DBLrnms.

It will be readily granted, I suppose, thiat in religion, with
the exception of those truths which (as the Apostle intinnates,
Rom. i.) reason, judging from the works of creation, nnay teach
as, nothing but a divine testimony can be sufficient to bind the
conscience to the belief of any doctrine. The divine will may,
indeed, be made known to us in various ways» and through the
agency of man, but all will agree I conceive in this, that what-
ever is delivered by man on the subject of religion can have
power over the conscience only so far as it can be shown to have
come originally from Grod.

For faith, as it respects the truths of religion, must have for
its foundation a divine testimony. " Faith,'' says the Apostle^
'* Cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." ([Rom.
i. 17.) And this Bellarmine himself acknowledges, that ** faith
must have the word of God to rest upon," so that where there is
no divine testimony ** there will be no faith."*

The ground, therefore, upon which our faith must rest, as it
concerns the truths of religion, must be some real or supposed
word of God. In our inquiries, therefore, as to ** what is truth"
in religion, we have to inquire, " what hath God said." Our
knowledge on the subject must begin and terminate with that
which we have reason to consider divine revelation. Faith, theo-
logically considered, expresses an assent of the mind to a truth

1 Cum /idet nitatur verbo Dei, nifi huheamat verbtiTB IM nofi ncriptom nuiia
nohi^ ^rit fidet. D© W^xK Di»i. liH. iv. p. 4. I am not here rnnc^rned with ItU
reuMtnififf in rhit paMage, or the uppUcatimi he luakea of the principU.

•csimma the toLS iNriixnu moiMf nrc. 4M

on the ground of itf having been revealed to us by God*^ It is
belief in things not the objects of the senses built upon that which
is believed to be divine testimony, and our evidence that such
testimony is divine^ must be satisfactory to the mind, otherwise
our assent must be proportionably uncertain.

Hence, as we have alreadv observed, the divinely-revealed
rule of faith is our sole rule of faith.

In determining, therefore, what constitutes our rule of faiths
the great question is, Through what media may we obtain in-
formation as to what God has revealed to man on the subject of
religion, sufficiently certain to bind the conscience to belief?

For the answer to this question, it is evident that we cannot
be guided by human authority. The Brahmin will send us to
one set of sacred books, the Mohammedan to another. And the
credentials of any person or writing, professing to deliver to us a
divine revelation, must be judged by us upon our individual re-
sponsibility to God) and not taken for granted upon any human
testimony ; and for this simple reason, that we are each of us
responsible to God for our conduct, and cannot shift that respon-
sibility upon others. All, thereforci are obliged to allow the
right and duty of private judgment upon this point to a certain
extent. Even the Romanist himself, who begins with the doc-
trine of the infiillibility of his Church, begs you to examine the
credentials of its infallibilitv, and thereby grants, in that point at
least, the right and duty of private judgment

Mr. Newman himself therefore, says, <' If man is in a state of
trial, and his trial lies in the general exercise of the will, and
the choice of religion is an exercise of will, and always implies
an act of individual judgment, it follows that such acts are in the
number of those by which he is tried, and for which he is to give
an account hereafter. So far all partjes murt be agreed, that
without private judgment, there is no responsibility.^ (p. )55.)
To which he adds, *' Romanist, I consider, agrees with Protestant
so far ; the question in dispute being, what are the means which
are to direct our choice, and what is the due manner of using
them," against which Mr. Newman must allow me to caution
the reader, for the question is, what is the degree of value at-
taching to the various means we have to direct our chdce, and
whether, of those means. Scripture is not our alone divine and
infallible informant ; and when he proceeds to tell us that popu-
lar Protestantism would deprive us of all external means but

Scripture, because it will not give them that place which he

**■

1 80 Dnrindas (it quoted by Biihop Paanon in hie ezposition of tha Creed,
Art 1) 8ayt,^Pidet «rt htbitas qao ueentimos dlctis Scripture pr(^rter tootori-
tfttem Dei re^UntU. Dunmd. lib. fii. Ditt. S4. q. 1. | 9.

409 taairrtmn imm woxm tnrAutns

anigiM totkem, he ia mabiog r statement wMcb, tnUt mpardal
readerg, can onlj be injurious to bimtelf end hit own came. He
knows well tbat, to menttoD no other*, one mean, used vtrj dili-
gently by "popular Protestantism," is the preaching of fallible
men, whom it belieres to be ofteo nted bv Ood as (he instru-
ments for conveying bbtii^ truth to the heart, both in the choice
of a religion, and after that choice is made, in the further choice
between truth and error, inculcated by the various teachers of
that religion ; a chmce, however, which we contend most be
groanded upon that which has reasonable pn»f of its being the
word of Goo.

ive already considered the grounds upon which Holy
nande our faith in it as the word of God. The
ti, is, have we any other divine informant T Our
t in a chiim for what tfaey call the tradition of the
tholic cntsent, i. e., the tradition- delivered to us by
writers of the church, and they tell us tbat Scrip-
tradition form jointly the rule of faith, sending us
ion to the writings of the first few ceotaries.
is, that this tradition (as we have already endea-
ve in a former chapter) is, from its nature, utterly
ckoned a divine informant, and, therefore, can Ibrm
I rule of faith. Prove it to be a divine infornant,
:e admit it into the rule of failh ; but if it be any-
1 a divine ioformaDt, it can form no part of that
mle. Mr. Keble may rest assured (hat we not only " cannot,"
but do not vnsh to " hide it from ourselves, that Goo's unwritten
word, ^ it can be any how authenticated, must necesurily de-
mand the same revereace from ui [t. e. as his written word] ;
and for exactly the same reason, because it it hia word." (p. S6.)
And to suppose that this is denied, is to flight with a abadow of
his own creation, instead of meeting the real antagonist.

The " rule of faith," therefore, might be thus defined, tbat it
consists, besides the Old Testament, of all which we have rea-
aooable ground of assurance was delivered to the church by our
Lord and his Apostles, or with their sanctioR and authority. To
those who heard them, and perhaps (o some others, all which
they delivered, as from God, came with equal authority, and
formed, as a whole, the rule of faith. And if oral tradition had
been considered a safe conveyance for the truth, it would have
been left to be so handed down to us. But such is not the case;*
and the very fact that the Apostles were careful to commit the
doctrines of the Gospel to writing, shows that they considered
them unsafe but in writing. And hence the Holy Scriptures are
to iu the sole rule of faith, because they embrace all which we-
have reaaooahle ground of onurance was delivered to the eburch.

ItTLB AUD Jtn>OB tK SSLtSIOll* 407

by Ottr Lord and his Apostles, or with their sanctioa and bu-
tfaority.

We receive the Apostolic traditions given to us in the Scrip-
tnresy because we have suflBk:ient reason to consider them genuine;
we receive not, as binding, statements pretended to be derived,
through the tradHion of the Fathers^ from their oral teaching,
because their eenuineness is altogether incapable of proof* \^
do not reject them because we have any doubt as to the good
faith of the Fathers, but because we know that, in matters of
doctrine, men are exceedingly liable to error in their representa-
tion of the opinions of others ; and also from the utter insufficiency
and uncertainty of the documents remaining to us of the antient
church, to establish anything Kke catholic consent; and we may
add, the insufficiency and uncertainty of the evidence afibrded
by even those that do remain, comparatively to what they ought
to a£R>rd on the hypothesis of our opponents; though at the same
time we do not (as bur opponents misrepresent us) regard what
the Fathers have delivered to us respecting the faith as nsetess:
but, on the contrary, that, properly used, it may be of considera-
ble value.

But, by ** the rule of faith,'' we understand a testimony which
shows us infallibly those dbctrines which we are bound by our
duty to Ood to receive ; and one which has such evidences of its
divine origin, as make it binding upon the consciences of all men ;
and of that rule, therefore, nothing can form a part which has
not reasonable evidence of its being the word of uod.

And if Holy Scripture is thus the sole infallible and authorita-
tive rule of faith, it follows, of course, that it is to its decision
«lone that we must appeal, as of absolute authority and infallible
in controversies concernine the faith ; and hence it is justly called
the sole infallible /u£;{^e ofcontrovtrries qf faith.

We say, also, that Holy Scripture is the sole infallible rule of
iaith to every individtuzl ; because, upon the very same grounds
upon which our opponents admit the right and duty of private
judgment in determining between the various forms of religion
existing in the world, do we contend for the right and duty of
•private judgment irf determining- between the various meanings
affixed by nominal Christians to the word of (Sod contained in the
Holy Scriptures. ^ Without private judgment,'' says Mr. New-
'man, ** there is no responsibili^ ;:" and to what individual or com-
munity among Christians, I would ask, can my responsibility to
Ood as an individual, with what all grant to be his word in my
4iand9, ht truttsferred f Is there anything besides Scripture that
has power over the consciences of individnab ?

Nor does the case of an altogether illiterate person overthrow
the truth of tUs as a general mle; ^ieb our opponents may

•408 sourruBB tbb solb ivwhyLtwh^

perhaps lee, by aaldi^ theottelves what thej wouM do io the
case of an illiterate Mohammedan t Would they say, Yoit must
give up your reltgion and receive ours* becattse we are certainly
r^ht; but we cannot aUow you, as a very iUitetatt man, to ex-
ercise yoqr judgment upon the matter 7 Be might at once re-
; ply» I have been told by those who, for aught I know, may be as
good judges as you, tfaiat mjf religion is right ; and, th^rdbre,
notwithstanding my disadvantages, I must make the best use I
can of my private judgment, andprajf to Ood to direct me
aright^ for as there is so much dinerence of opinion upon this
matter, I cannot folbw one guide blindfold any more than the
other. And this holds equally for a choice between the difierent
meaninss given to Scripture, as for a choice between the diffe-
rent religions existing in the world*

And this admission of the right of private judgment, be it oh-
served, does not prevent any Church from excommunicating one
who, in the view of that Qiurchy errs obstinately in the funda-
mentals of the faith. They who excommunicate, and he who ad-
heres to his error, both act on their own re^wneibilUy, u&iher
pretending to infallibility, either through the possession of patris-
tical tradition, or in any other way ; but appealing primarily to
th6 Scriptures, and through them to the great Head of the
Church, as* the Judge; an appeal winch can only be decided at
a future day. And when the Church becomes split into various
parties of different sentiments, it tnuet be left to the judgment of
every individual to determine, its well as he can^ as to their
tenets and rival pretensions; a judgment which must be ground-
ed upon the word of Ood in the &riptures, as the only divine
informant ; though in forming it, he may derive much help from
the recorch of the Christian Church during the whole of its past
course, particularly in the eariler period of it ; while he takes
care to remember the uncertainties and imperfections attending
all informants but Scripture.

^< If," says Dean Sherlock, ^ you ask whose judgment ought
to take place, the judgment of the Church, or of every private
Christian ? I answer, The judgment of the Church of necessity
roust take place as to external government, to determine what
shall be professed and practised in her communion; and no pri-
vate Christian has any thing to do in these matters. But when
the question is. What is right or wrong, true or folse, in what we
may obey, and in what not, here every private Christian who
will not believe without understanding, nor follow his guides
blindfold, must judge for himself $ and itisasoMichas his soul
is worth to judge right"*

BULS AND JUDOB III BKLIOZON. 400

We 6f> not, then, be it obterved, rest this truth upon ^ny su^
posed necessity that G^ must have comoiunicated hU will U>
tnankiDdy through the medkini of writing ; or that the Scrip-
tures musty of necesuty, coDtain this or tlwt Such reasoning
appears presumptuous and unfounded* We take things as we
find them, and reason accordingly. It is not for us to determine
what it was necessary for God to do, or what he might do, and
suppose it done, but to use the reason which God has given us, in
aacertaining what he has done; and we thus find that there is
reasonable evidence that Scripture is his Word ; and that there
is no sufficient evidence for anything else being such*

If-then, the ar^ments given in the chapter on patristical tra-
dition are a sufficient proof that such tradition cannot be oao*
sidered an unwritten Word of God, and is thus not a sufficient
foundation for faith to rest upon, the truth which we here advo-
cate is by that admission (as iar as our present subject is con-
cerned) established.

And it follows from hence,

First, That the doctrines contained in Scripture, have an au*
thoritative claim upon our iaith, only as fyr as they are there
revealed; and

Secondly, That no doctrieehas any authoritative claim ufion
our faith, that is not revealed in Scripture.

These two corollaries we shall notice more particularly in our
next chapter.

And in the same way it follows that Scripture, being our
sole divine informant, is also our soU dimnely -revealed rule of
practice.

But the truth, for which we btise contend, does not rest on the
arguments we have already adduced, as its sole foundation ; and
we shall now proceed to omr to the reader some further conside-
rsitions respecting it.

I. On its true nature and extent

II. The additional arguments by which it may be supported,
with a reply to the objections by which it » assailed.

We shall first argue the question as to Scripture being the sole
divine rule of faith andpra^tiee^ and then show that is in like
manner the sole infallible judge of controversies in religion.
Our remarks will more particularly refer to matters of faith, ex-
cept where stated ; these points forming the most important part
of the inquiry.

I. First, then, as to the true nature and extent of this truth,
that Scripture is the sole divine rule of faith and practice.

We premise some remarks on this bead, in order to guard

VOL. 1. MM

410 SCBIPTtRB Ttt0 «OLB IlYFAtLIBLS

against those misconceptions, and, I mnij add, misrepresentaCions
of our views, which are so frequentlj to be met with.

Let it be observed, then, first, that it is not affirmed by vs that
we hiive, in the Holy ScriptHres, everything that our Lord and
his Apostles uttered; nor that what the Apostles delivered in
writing, was of greater authority than what they delivered orally.
It is undeniable that we have not all that they delivered, et
Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, appears to
allude' to information which he had gtven^ themorally, and which
he does not state in his writings. (2 Thess. ii. 5, 6.) It is likely
that this might have been the case in some minor points. Nay,
it in pasMle that the AiM)6tles may have given to some of their
converts, on some occasioD, a more full and luminous exposition
o{ this or that doctrine, than what we find in Scripture. I will
even add that it is passible that as there had been a succession of
Ood's people from the beginning, so the substance, or at least a
portion ot such additional matter may have been propaeated
from one to another, and have thus come to the children of (rod
of our own day, commended to the spiritual mind by its own
light; but, as far as regards any direct proof, or external evi-
dence of its Apostolical origin, utterly destitute of any such claim
upon us, and I should rather with Theodoret,^ attribute any
similarity of sentiment that has prevailed among the children oif
God on such points, to their having all been partakers of the in-
fluences of the same Spirit.

Bat this we do affirnri, that having /bttr different accounts of
<< the Gk)spel of Jesus Christ," the last written for the very pur-
pose of making the account complete,' and above twenty Epis-
tles written by the Apostles to explain it stiH further, to say that
anything at all important is omitted, is a foul Kbei upon that
Holy Spirit by which the Apostles were guided. We want no
Fathers to tell us this ; notwithstanding that Mr. Newman can-
not even believe that Scripture notices even the fundamentals
of the faith, but on the authority of the Fathers.*

And we add, that as there is nothing else entitled to be con-
sidered a divine infornrmnt, so there is nothing else that has au-
thority to bind the conscience to a belief of what it delivers.

Holy Scripture, therefore, is to us the perfect or complete rule
of faith.

We speak not of any abstract perfection, such that nothing
could be added to it that iA*ould throw additional light upon the
doctrines of religion ; for indeed it would not become us to a t-

I See f itracts from Tbeodoret, ch. 10. below.
> See fioeeb. Hi«t. Eecl. Ui. 24.
a Led. pp. 339, 40.

BUUB AND JUDGE IN SBLIMON. 411

tempt to pan any such judgment upon any revelation it vMit
please God to aflord us. But it is perfect in the tense of entire-
nets. And of this sort of perfection only are we qualified to
judge.

In determining! therefore, whether Scripture is such a rule,
we are not at all concerned with the inquiry whether this or that
doctrine is contained there, nor even whether the truths there
delivered are revealed plainly or obscurely ; for neither of these
aSect the solution of the question, which depends upon this, viz.,
whether Scripture is or is not our only divine informant. The
perfection of the rule to us^ follows from the fact that there is
no other ^ nothing else that is entitled to the character of a divine
and infallible rule ; and by this, therefore, whaiever it may be,
we must be guided. We say not, that it embraces everything
which God might have revealed, nor even all which the Apostles
did actually deliver, but that it includes all which we can know
to be of divine revelation.

Nor let our opponents object that it cannot be supposed that
any, the least portion of what the Apostles delivered, could be
allowed to perish from the remembrance of the Church ; for the
reply is obvious, and one that is not at all flattering to their favour-
ite hypothesis of the fidelity of church-tradition ; namely, that
such things have unquestionably perished. For instance, where,
is the church-tradition from which we can learn what it was that
withheld the appearance of ** the wicked one f ' (2 Thest. ii. 5,
6.) Where is the tradition which delivers to us those tilings to
which St John alludes at the end of his Gospel T

And this remark is a complete answer to the objection often
made by the Romanists tq. Protestant views, namely, that we
have a different rule of faith to the earliest Christians, because
theirs included more than what is delivered in the Scriptures;
for this is equally true of the Popish Rule, the Romanists them-
selves not pretending to know some things which we are assured
from Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to their converts.
We do not deny, then, that there may be some particles of the
gold of the sanctuary in the records of Christian antiquity. And
we subject those records to the test of Scripture, reason, and
conscience, that we may, if possible, extract them. And we
look to the aid of the Divine Spirit to help us in our inquiries.
While certainly it is our belief that such a process would show
that the gold bears very, very little proportion to the dross ; and
that to the great majority, such a search would be as unprofita-
ble as laborious. There is danger, indeed, in the search to all ;
for the same feelings and prejudices which originally caused the
dross to accumulate, are still alive to operate in its favour, and
make men often prefer it to the pure gold.

412 •OmiPTVU TBB MMA UfPALLIBLI

Here, theny is the great diflferenee between vs and our oppo-
nents, that we allow men to judse of that which comes to them
by what is called church-tradition, by the light of Scripture,
reafon, and conscience, and do not allow it to assume the charac-
ter of an unwritten Word of God, and so to bind the conscience
to belief in whatever it may deliver. Our opponents will not
allow us to judge of it, but only to be judged by it, and submit
to it as a divine testimony.

Secondly, it is not affirmed that those doctrines only are to be
received that are laid down in exprt$$ terms in Scripture, but
that those are to be received that are either delivered there in
express terms, or deduclble by necessary consequence apparent
to reason for its statements.

For instance, it is nowhere stated in express terms in Scripture
that the Holy Spirit is Grod, but the doctrine of his divinity fol-
lows by necessary consequence apparent to reason from the state-
ments of Scripture. The same may be said of the doctrine of the
consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.

Thirdly, the grievous misrepresentations of Romanists and Ox-
ford Tract writers compel us to add what might otherwise have
been thought to be unnecessary, viz. that when we speak of Scrip-
ture as the sole authoritative rule of faith to every individual, we
are as far as themselves from *^ seeming to allow,^ or being ** fan the
way to allow" << that that is truth to each which each thinks to be
truth, provided he sincerely and really thinks it, that the dirinity of
the Bible itself is the only thing that noeds to be believed, and
that its meaning varies with the individuals who receive it ;*'^ or,
again, from being desirous of '< depriving" men of " all external
means except Che text of Holy Scripture,*^ or thinking that <' to
inquire about the early church, the consent of Fathers, &c. . . .
or to make the primitive writers a comment upon the inspired
text, are but melancholy and pernicious follies,"* or of ^ chiefly
employing ourselves in assailing the Chrbtian Fathers."* All
these are representations which ultimately only recoil upon their
authors, showing most forcibly the inherent weakness of their
cause, when they are compelled to attempt to make the reader
believe that the theory of the great body of their opponents is
something very different to the reality, and will strongly remind
those who know anything of the controversial writing of the Re-
formation of the Popish artifices of that period. The cause of
all this misrepresentation is simply this, that we affirm that
Scripture is our only divine informant, and therefore of course
esteem Scripture as much above everything eke as that which is

' Newman, p. 35. and tee pp. 29 1, 2. a Tb. p. IftS.

^ N^wmto, p. 192. 4 lb. p. 195.

BfTLX AND JUDGE IN BELIQION. 41 1

divine is above that which is human. But we do not reject as
valueless, but on the contrary attach considerable value to» the
writings of God's saints who lived in former times, knowing that,
among much of all kinds, we may meet with much in which we
may trace the footsteps of that Divine Spirit, whose gifts are be-
stowed at his pleasure for the edification of the Churcht and w^
look Op to Him who is promised as the Teacher of all the chil-
dren o( God, to enable us to separate the preck>us from the vile,
receiving all as coming from the mouth of fallible witnesses.

And, lastly, in reply to every question as to what we mean by
saying that Scripture is such a rule of faith to every individual^
we mean that it is so to every individual who is conscious of the
existence of the Scriptures and able to become acquainted vrith
them, and is of an age and a state of mind to be responsible to
God for believing what God has revealed. Everv such person is
bound by his duty to God to ascertain, as far as he is able, that
what he may have been previously taught by man is accordant
with that which God has there revealed ; and if there appears
to him to be any discordance between the two, to believe God's
own words rather thkn those of men, seeing that he is responsi-
ble not to man but to God. Any arguments, therefore, derived
from the absurdity of placing the Bible in the hands of a child
for him to draw out a system of truth from it, or from the case
of those wh6 may be prevented by peculiar circumstances from
consulting or understanding the Scriptures, fall quite wide of the
mark. Such arguments evidently prove nothing, because it is
clearly quite a possible case, at any rate, that God should
have made the Scriptures such a rule, and our only divine in^
formant, and we cannot argue from any supposed conseouences
of such a state of things that God has not done so. Nor is there
any reason why we should suppose that the statements of either
the Fathers, the Church, or the Pope, are an infallikle rule of
faith, or any part of it, because children and ck>wns may need
guidance to point out the true faith in Scripture. The disad-
vantages under which some may labour in thb respect, can be
no proof that tradition is to be depended upon, or that Scripture
is obscure. You will have to teach a child or a clown by more
or less of explanation that things that are equal to the same
are equal to one another, while I suppose no man will deny that
if this proposition was in the Bible as a point of faith, the ffible
could not be accused of obscurity or be said to want tradition to
interpret its meaning, and be taxed with imperfection as a rule
of faith in this point* A Newton may want assistance as a child
to enable him to understand the most simple proposition, but it
folk>ws not that he is to be dictated to in mature age by one who
taught him the alphabet

MM* •

414 soBxrrvBB thb bolb ikfalublb

Soch objections are mo6i vain and foolish. They do not touch
the point at issue.

1 now proceed^ then, to point out

II. The additional arguments by which the view here taken
may be established, with a reply to the objections by which it is
assailed. And

(1) Let us observe the arguments and objectioDS derived from
Scripture itself on this point.

Now here I admit at once that there is no passage of the New
Testament precisely stating that the Christian rule of faith is
limited to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; and
for the best of all reasons, viz. that such a statement would, at
that timet (i- e. during the publication of the books of the New
Testament,) have been utterly inapplicable to the circumttan-
ces of the infant Church and untrue. For a little time there
were no Scriptures of the New Testament, and the Scriptures
which we possess were gradually written, and did not at once
find their way into the whole Christian Church, and no one ever
dreamed that the oral instructions of the Apostles were not to
those who heard them as authoritative as their writings. They
among whom the Scriptures were originally promulgated had
been themselves hearers, that is, very many of tnem, of our Lord
and his Apostles, and to them the unwritten word was as au-
thoritative as the written. Consequently such a statement could
only have been made as a prospective announcesient, applicable
only to a subsequent period of the Church. Was it, then, t<) be
expected, was it, indeed, possible, that the Apostles sholild pre-
ciselv fix the period at which, or the persons to whom, meir
writings would be the sole infallible rule of faith, when with the
earliest Christians it would evidently depend very much upon
situation and circumstances how far this was the case t

But though we have not, and were not likely to have, 9ich an
announcement in Scripture, we have there what may answer as
welly the determination of a parallel case, viz. that of the Jews
at the time of our Lord^s incarnation. We learn cleariy from
Scripture, that the Canon of the Old Testament was to them at
that time (the divine voice beine no longer heard anru>ng them)
the sole rule of faith; and that the traditions of the Fathers, not-
withstanding their pretended divine origin, were not worthy of
being considered the Word of God.

That the Scriptures of the Old Testament were to the Jews
of that period the sole authoritative rule of faith, we have» I
4:onceive, very sufficient testimony in Scripture* In the parable
of the rich man and Lazarus, our Lord himself evidently refers
to them as bearing that character, when he makes Abraham
reply to the rich man begging for some messenger to be sent to

^ITLS AND J17D0B IN BKUOIOIT. 415

instruct his brethren on earth; '^They bare Mottf and the
prophets, let them hear them.'* (Luke xvi. 20.) And still more
clearly, in his reply to the lawyer who asked him, *' Master,
what shall I do to inherit eternal life!" '^Ue said unto him.
What is written in the law? How readest thou?" (Luke k.
25, 6.) And so in the scene of temptation in the wilderness; he
meets the tempter at every turn with the written word as his
guide and rule. (Matt iv. I — 10.) Further ; to them and to them
alone our Lord constantly appealed, in proof of the truth of his
doctrinei as the rule of judgment ^^ Search the Scriptures^"
(John V. 89.) ^' Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." (Matt,
xxii. 29.) And so for from appealing to or even recognizing
any <^ tradition," he (as we have seen) only mentions traditions
in the way of rebuke. See Mark viL 1 — 18, where ^ the com-
mandment of Grod" and ^ the word of God" are identified with
Scripture, and put in opposition to the *Uraditions" of the
Pharisees, which are called without dtitinctian ** the command-
ments of men." Now the authority claimed for these **tradi-
tions" stood upon a foundation precisely similar to that upon
which the supposed authority of the ^traditions" of the Cbristian
Church rest The one were said to have been handed down
from the oral teaching of Moses, through the ^ elders," or, as
we shotuld say, Fathers. The other from the oral teaching of
the Apostles, by a similar mode of conveyance.

Moreover, it is evident from the whole of our Lord's teaching,
that in his references to Scripture he appealed to the conscience
of individuals as the interpreter of Scripture, and willed them
to judge of the meaning of Scripture, not by ^tradition," or
any other pretended authority, but by their own reason and con-
science. And they ak>ne wlio did so could receive him, for tra-
dition and the Church, in our opponents' sense of the words,
were against him ; and they who followed these guides, stifled
inquiry with the observation, ** Have any of the rulers or Pharisees
believed on him ?" The doctrine of those who adopted these
guides, was precisely that of our opponents ; and notwithstanding
the warnings of reason and conscience, ihtf waited till the au-
thorities of the Church, the keepers of Scripture and witnesses
of tradition, should declare in his favour, and spoke of those who
exercised the right of private judgment exactly as our opponents
do now.

Still further, the Apostles refer to the Scriptures of the Old
Testament so as evidently to show that they recognised them as
bearing this character. Observe the constant references made
to them by St. Paul as the rule of faith. <• What saith the
Scripture ?" (Rom. iv. 8., xi. 2. ; Gak iv. 80.) And when he
argued with the Jews, he '* reasoned with them out of the Scrip-

416 SCIIIPTVmB THX 80I*B IMFAIXIBtJE

tures." (Acts xviL 2.) And when pleading his cause belbre Felix,
be gives this sumiQarj of his creed»that he ** believed all tbiogs
which are written in the Law and in the Prophets." (Acts. xxiv.
14.) And the Bereans arepraised bj St Luke for referring to
the Scriptures of the Old Testament as their rule of judgment,
by which to try the preaching of St Paul. (Acts xvii. 11.)

Lastly, as a full and irrefragable testimony to this truth, let
us mark what St Paul says to Timothy on this subject. " Con*
tinue thou in the tbincs which thou hast learned, and hast been
assured of^ knowing of whom thou hast learned them» and that
from a child thou hast known thii holy Scriptures, which are able
to make thee wise unta salvation through faith which is in Christ
iesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration <^ God, and is profita-
ble for doctrine, for reproof, for correction; for instruction in
righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. iii. 14 — 16.)

We thus find, then, that though there is no direct testiniony
in the OM Testament to its perfection as the sole infallible rule of
faith to the Jews in the time of our Lord, such assuredly it was,
and that for the same reason that the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testament are to us, namely, that through the uncertainty
of tradition there was nothing else which had any sufficient evi«
dence of its beinethe word of Grod^ For it might have been said
then of the 0|d Testament, as it is now of the New, What is
here written is not all that Moses and the prophets delivered,
and therefore if we refuse to receive the traditions of the elders,
we shall be rejecting part of what God has revealed, and mak-
ing to ourselves a different rule of faith to what our forefathers
had. But that the objection was worthless, is clear from the
declarations of our Lord and his Apostles we have jujBt quoted.

As, then, in the time of our Lord, the Canon of the Old Tes-
tament was the sole rule of faith to the JewSt notwithstanding
that those who had been contemporary with the authors of the
Old Testament Scriptures m^^ht have heard from them some
other things of minor importance, which therefore entered inta
their rule of faith as derived from the same source with the
Scriptures, 9o to us the Canon of Holy Scripture is the sole rule
of faith, notwithstanding that those who were contemporary
with the Apostles might have received from them some statements
of minor importance, which came to them with equal authority
as the Scriptures.

And if it is the sole rule of faith, it follows that it is the sole
divine rule of practice, the rule of faith being co-extensive with
divir»e revelation.

Further, it is to be considered that the Gospel was not a reve-
lation altogether x^yf^ being, in all its great features at least, only

BULB AND JVDGB IK SBUOIOir 417

a deveolpment of the types and prophecies of the Old TettameDt,
where the language oi the inspired writers of the New Testa-
ment leads us to recognize a very full adunabration of it^ whole
doctrine. Thus St. Paul describes himself to Felix as believing
ail things written in the law and the prophets, with a manifest
reference to his Christian faith, (Acts xxiv. 14.) and when argu-
ing with the Jews, he reasoned with them out of those Scriptures,
(Acts zvii. 2,) and says, that the revelation of the mystery of
God in the Gospel \b ** by the Scriptures of the prophets^ ac-
cording to the commandment of the everlasting Grod, m€ide knoum
to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Rom. xvi. 26.)^ And
the Bereans are praised br St. Luke forjudging the doctrines
preached by the Apostle raul by the Scriptures of the Old Tes-
tament. (Acts. xvii. 11.)

Consequently, we have, even in the Old Testament, an adum-
bratory representation of all the great truths of the Gospel —
Are we, then, to suppose, that when besides this we have four
different accounts of the doctrines and precepts i^hich bur Lord
delivered while on earth, and above twenty epistles by the Apos-
tles to different churches, that we must still go beyond the Scrip-
tures to find any important truth t

Be it observed, also, from the passage we have iust quoted
from St. Paul's 2d Epbtle to Timothy, how perfect the Canon of
the Old Testament was considered to be as a rule both of faith
and practice, even sufficient to render the man of God perfect,
and thoroughly to furnish him to all good works. Is not, then, the
Canon of tne New Testament sufficient to supply such informa-
tion respecting the religion adumbrated in the Old Testament,
as to render the two Testamenta together as sufficient to us as
the Old was to Timothy 7

But to all such considerations our opponents seem to think that
thev have a ready answer, for they say th4t Scripture itself is
in ravour of their doctrine of tradition. I shall now, then, pro*
ceed to consider the passages adduced by them in proof of this

1 It it guppoMd bj Whitby, thtt the Scriptaret of the Prophets here mentioned
ire the iScriptoree of the Prophets of the New Testament ; end he refere to
Eph. iii. 6. in corroboretton of thUjnterpretetion, where it ie eeid that the mys-
tery of the gospel wee " not in other agea made known unto the tone of men aa
it is now revealed onto the holy apoatlea and prophets by ^he Spirit," where
evidently the prophett mentioned are thoee of the New Testament. But I con-
fesa, though the interpretation is possible, and wonld aflbrd strong STidence in
favour of the view for which we are here contending, I cannot bring myself to
think that such' was the meaning of the Apostle, but that he rather had in view
the prophetical Scriptures of the Old Testsment, which formed the ground work
aa it were of the preaching of the Apostles and first teachers of Christianity, aa
we aee illustftted both in the Apostolical Scripturea and the Epiatle of Clement.

418 scsimrss thb noim. istfallibui

aflsartioD, and show how utterly destitute of fooodatioo is the ar-
gument so raised.

This argument is iosbted upon more particularly by Mr. Keble,
whose sermon b written, indeed, for the purpose of enforcing it.
{ need hardly say that the texts he haa chosen in support of it
are precisely those which Bellarmioe^ and the Romanists adduce
for the same purpose ;. and it is somewhat strange, that the ar-
guments by which the applicability of these texts to suth a pur-
pose has been o?er and over again disproved by some of the most
tible divines of our church, are eiitirely unnoticed, and the state-
meats of Rome, even to the petitio principii upon which they
are almost all founded, repeated almost verbatitn.

The passages chiefly insisted upon are of course those in the
Ejpistles to Timothy. '^ That good thing which was committed
unto thee (f*«» jmiA«v wmfmunrmimwi)^ keep by the Holy Ghost
Iviiich dvi^elleth ia u&" (2 Tim. L 14.) <« The things that thou
hast heard of me among many witnesses* the same commit thou
to faithful men. who shall be able to teach others also," (2 Tim.
iL 2.) '* O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust."
(1 Tim. vi. 20.)«

The first of these passages ibrms Mr. Keble's text, aod the
first thinff ,he endeavours, to prove is, that '< the good thing left
in Timomy'fl charge" *^ Was the treasure of Apostoiifcal doctrines
and church rules : the rules and doctrines which made up the
charter of Christ's kingdom*" (p. 20.) Now that it comprised
the fundamentals of the faith is at once granted, but as to its
being '^ the treasure of Apostolical doctrines and church rules,"
in the sense in which Mr. keble has afterwards explained these
words, yiz4 that it ** contained besides the substance of Christian
doctrine, a certain form^ arrangement^ seieoiion, methodizing
the whaiCi and dietiHguiehingjundamentale^ and oho a cer-
tain system qf dhtirch practice, both in go»emmefU, disci^
pline^ and worshy^i*^ and was '.' something so wholly sufficient ^
so unexceptionably accurate, as to require nothing but fidelity in
its transmitters," (p. 21,) such a notion is a pure fiction of the
imagination, utterly unsupported by Scripture, or by the Fa-
thers, who speak oi this aeposit (as Mr. Keble himself admits)
as noeaniog <' the truths committed by St Paul to Timothy ;"
« the deposit of the/a«7A," (Jerome) "the Catholic /wVA'^ (Vine.
Lir.)' And this seems clearly to follow from th^ context oi these
passages. For in the first the " deposit" is mentioned immedi-
ately after the Apostle had exhorted Timothy, '* hold fast the

» D« Verb. D. lib. iv. c. 6.

2 8e«: Keble's Bcrm. pp. 5, 22, and 49.
^Serm.pp. 18, 19.

«ULS.A:f9 JITDOEIH KELIOIOIT. 419

form of [those] sdund words which thou hast be^rd of me;"
and the last with the context runs thus^ '* Keep that which is
committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblines and
oppositions of science falsely so called ; wbicb sornd professing
have erred coneeniiii| the faith.**

When, tbereforei Mr. Keble says, ^ Upon tbe whole we may
assume^ with some confidtncty tnat tbe. good thing IjBft in Timo-
thy's charge" was what we have ain^ve quoted from him, be is
doing what we have but too often totaiki^t in this controversy,
^' assuming with some confidence** what be has not the slight-
est right to assume at all, and what both Scripture and Fathers
are opposed to ; and this interpretation, so *< ati^umed with eome
confidence^* and no reasonf serves bim aftet wards in great stead.
For as it is evident that we have not in Scripture such an
«* arrangement) selection, miethodiziiig tbe whole, and ^Kstidguish-
ing fundamentals, and also a certain system of church practice,
both in government, discipline, and worship,'^ it enaMes him to
jump to the coodusioD, that Timotby*s deposit embraced much
more than we have in Scripture, wfaieii, ludging both from Scrip-
ture and the lannage of the Fathers, dfie probability |s that it
contained mach less. And as Timothy was exhorted to keen it
safely, so the more Mr. Keble can make it include, the more im-
perfect will Scripture appear to be, and the more important that
patristical tradition which professes tx^ hand this deposit down to
us. And the great reasoa why Mr. Keble wants it is, that, like
fiellarmine, be separates the sense of Scripture from Scripture,
and makes Scripture and its meaning two diflerent tilings, as if
Scripture was so obsCMre Chat it could not be understood without
patristical tradition.

As to the praise amount, however, which it contained, we
can safely allow Mr. Kebie'3 imagmation (which in other sub-
iects we higbly* value) to have some little scope, and will willing-
ly give him the fundamentab both of fiiith and worship, if only
be will allow as to make use of our reason to consider how far
patristical tradition is either wanted or to be trusted for convey-
ing to us this ^deposit*' But all the «pecipusoess of Mr. Keble*s
arguments, from tnese and similar passages of Scripture, is derived
from his assuming tlie very point in question,!, e. th^ trustworthi-
ness of patristical tradition, for all hu arguments amount mex^\j
to this, that because the Apostles told their converts to recollect
and act according to all which they bad delivered to them by
word as well as writing, therefore we are to believe and act ac-
cording to all that a few Fathers of tbe Church have reported to
us as derived from their oral teaching, or even as the doctrine of
the Church in their time, because such doctripe must be consid-
ered the doctrine of the Apostles. In a word, because the Church,

420 scsirruxs Tn sol« iWFAi.fiBtE

in the Apdstolic age^^received aidiviDely-iospired tbeoral instruc-
tioD6 of the Apostles ; therefore we are to receive the pairistical
tradition of those tradittons as an iofallible and divine informaDt
*' The holjr'writiogp themsdves intimate^" says Mr. Keble» ^that
the persons to whom they were addressed were in possession of a
body of truth and doty totally distinct from themselves^ and in-
dependent of them.^ (pp« 2I9 3.) Of course they were, for the
simple reason, that the Apostles preached and formed a church
before they wrote. But what then ? ** Timothy, for instance,"
he adds, ^ a few verses after the text, is enioined to take measures
for the transmission, not of Holy Scripture, but of the things which
he had heard of St. PauU among many witnesses.*' How, let me
ask, could he transact what in all probability he had not t' And
when, in a tubaequent pace, he intimates that because Timothy
was exhorted to ** keep mat committed to his charge," we are
thereby warned to keep what patristical tradition 1ms delivered
to us,^ he is unworthily assuming the very point in question.

There is one point, however, in which I fuUv agree with him ;
and that is wheret after several pages of proo^ be ** ventures to
assume," ^* from the nature of the case, the incidental testimony
of Scripture, and the direct assertions of the Fathers," that it was
** an timeri^/m system" which St. Paul spoke of, when he '* so
earnestly recommended the deposit ;"' for nothing can be more
certain than that the Goi^l, ifefore It was written, was unwrit-
ten ; and, sis Mr. Keble liimself telb us, ^ the time spoken of was
not the time when St. Paul was writings but when Timothy re-
ceived his cAoiye."*

To sum up all, then, in one word, what Mr. Keble and the
Romanists luive got to prove, before they din in any way avail
themselves of these passages, is, (1) that Timothy's deposit em-
braced somethioff of importance not in Scripture ; and (2) that
patristical tradttioD is an infallible informant as to what that de-
posit was ; which are precisely the two points ** assumed with
some confidence," with scarcely an attempt at a proof.

Before, however, Mr. Keble attemjpts to prove the former of
the^ two*points, let me commend to his consideration the fetlow-
ingjMissage to TertnUian, showing his opinion on the matter.

These passages, it seems, were quoted by some 'heretics in Ter-
tuUiari's time, to prove their traditiotu^ — and they inferred from
them, that there were some things which w«re committed by the
Apostles to a few only of their more trustworthy converts, and
not preached openly to ail ; and that such was the deposit com-
mitted to Timotl^, qM>keff of in these passages. But, says Ter-

lULI AlfB JVDGS IN SBLIOXQir. 421

tuUian, " What is this secret deposit, that it should be reckoned
as a different doctrine? Was it of that charge, of which he
says, * This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy.' [1 Tim. i.
18.] Likewise of that commandment, of which he says, *I
charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and
before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good
confession, that thou keep this commandment.' Fl Tim. vi. J3.]
But what commandment and what charge? It will be

KirowN FROM THS coNTRXT Neither, moreover, because

he admonishes him to * commit these things to faithful men who
should be able to teach others also,' [2 Tim. ii. 2.] is that to be
interpreted as a proof of any hidden gospel T for when he says
* these things,' he speaks of thosb things or which bs was
THBN WRITING ; bttt of hidden things he would have said, as of
things absent, in the remembrance of Hmothy, not ' these things,'
but ' those things.' "'

This passage of Tertullian, then, will, I hope, somewhat shake
Mr. Keble's '* confidence" in his own interpretation of the text in
question.

Another of the passages brought by oar opponents' in support
of their views, ia tnat in 2 Thess. iL 15. ** Therefore, brethren,
stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word or our epistle." And I will venture to say
that, beyond the occurrence of the word ** traditions" in it, there
is not a pretext for so applying it The Epistles to the Thessa-
lonians, we must observe, were, with the exception possibly of
St. Matthew's Gospel, the first written of all the books of the
New Testament And St Matthew's Gospel was written more
especially, in the first instance, for the use of the Jewish converts.
Consequently the Thessalooians had, at the time when these
Epistles were addressed to them no other books of the New Tes-
tament And of this Mr. Eeble is fully conscious ; for he says,
when mentioning this text, '* They coqid not be exhorted to hold
the Christian Scripture, since at that time, in all probability, no
Christian Scriptures yet exbted, except perhaps St Matthew's
Gospel." (p. 22.) Much, therefore, at least, timt we learn from

1 Qaod hoe depodtam eft Ucitani, vt tlteii dotlriiMB depotetiir ? An illiiie
denontietioDity de que tit, Hane deoaotietiooeiii eommendo epod te» iUi Timo-
tbee. Item illioe precepti, de qao ait ; DeDUDtio tibi ante Denm qui Tiviilcat
omnia, et Jeaam Cbriatara qui leatatna eat aob Pontio Ptiato boDtm eonfteaioiiem
euatodiaa pnBoeptQm. Qood hoc pnMoptqm et qMi denaBtiatio 1 Ex aopra et
ialra aeripUa intelligetur .... 8ed nee quia votoi^ llloa k«e ftdeKbiia hooiiBi*
baa demandare, qai idonei aint eC alioa doeere^ id qvoqoe ad aifMMiitiim ooonltt
alietgoa Efangelii inlerpfttandifm eat If am eaai^diac, hae, ^ eie didt de qui-
boa in pnMonti aeiibebet: df oeeakia autem, ol drabaaiHibni apo^ pometoBtiafi
BOn hiM aed ilhi dixiiaet. De Pinaer. c U. Qi Msf. \%¥t.
s See KeUe'a Sena. p. %%.

VOU 1. f W

42t SCKIPrijRE THE 80LB IlfFALLIBLB

the Scriptures, must have been communicated orallj to the
Thessalonians by the Apostle ; as, for instance, the ordinances of
baptism and the Lord's Supper. They had no Scriptures pro-
fessing to give them an account of our Lord's Gospel. And
thtise were traditions which they had themselves received from
the mouth of the Apostle himself. And who denies that the
oral teaching of the Apostles was of equal authority with their
writings I so that the argument from this passage runs thus, —
Because the Thessalonians, when destitute of the Scriptures,
were exhorted by the Apostle to observe all things that he had
himself delivered to them» either orally or by letter, therefore
we, possessing the Scriptures, are to conclude that there are im-
portant points of Apostolical teaching not delivered to us any-
where in all the various books of the New Testament, and are
bound to receive patristical tradition as an infallible informant
on such points. Now the chief question at issue is, whether we
have that oral teaching, in any shape in which we can depend
upon it, in the writings of the Fathers. And yet, in a subse-
quent page (p. 47), Mr. Keble applies this passage to the pre-
sent day, as coolly and unhesitatingly asif we were precisely in
the situation of the Thessaloniansi and had been ourselves hear-
ers of the Apostles, and received from them instructions not con-
tained in Scripture.

To make this passage it all suitable to their purpose, they
must show that there was something important in the oral teach-
ing of the Apostles, which is not to be found in all the books of
the New Testament ; a notion, against which we can array the
whole body of the Fathers ; (of which it is apparent, from Mr.
Newman's thirteenth Lecture, that our opponents are fully con-
scious ; although they attempt to get over the difficulty, by as-
serting that, though all things essential are there, yet they are
there so latently, that we cannot find them until patristical tra-
dition has pointed them out;) or at least they must prove that
the patristical tradition we possess of the oral traditions of the
Apostles, is an informant sufficiently certain to bind the conscience
to belief.

The same answer will suffice for a similar passage in a subse-
quent part of the Epistle, viz., 2 Thess. iii. 6.

Mr. Keble proceed to cite two other passages in support of
his view.

<< Much later," he says, «« we find St Peter declaring to the
whole body of Oriental Christians, that in neither of his Epistles
did be profess to reveal to them any new truth or duty^but to
'istir up their min^s, by way of remembrance of the com-
mandment of tbe Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.' (2 Pet. iii.
1.) St John refers believers fi>r a standard of doctrine, to the

SITLB AHB IVDeB IN EBUOIOir- 4SS

word which they had heard from the begiDoiog, (1 John iL 24.) and
intimates thai it was sufficient for their Christian communioo, if
that word abode in them^ U the word, the commandment^ the
tradition, which the latest of these holy writers severally com-
mend iii these and similar passages, meant only or chiefly the
Scriptures before written, would there not appear a more sig-
nificant mention of those Scriptures;, something nearer the tone
of our own divines, when they are delivering precepts on the
rule of faith 7 As it is, the phraseology of the Epistles exactly
concurs with what we should be led to expect ; that the Churco
would be already in possession of the substance of saving trvth,
in a sufficiently systematic form, by the sole teaching of the Apos-
tles." (pp. 22, 23.)

I have given the passage in full to show the reader precisely
Mr. Keble's mode of reasoning upon these texts; and one is
almost tempted to ask, Can the writer be serious in making
these observations, or ia he sarcastically showing how utterly
destitute of evidence is the cause he professes to defend. St.
Peter and St John (s^ys Mr. Keble) refer Christians of their
age to the comtnandments and instructions which they had re-
ceived orally from the Apostles, and did not say to them, directly
one or two books of Scripture had been written (which they
might or might not possess), you must forget all which the Apos-
tles told you, and be careful to believe nothing but what you
find written in one or two books which have been published by
the Apostles, which you must get if you can ; and iherefprt
we, who have all the books of the New Testament, including
four accounts of the gospel, who have never had any instructions
from the Apostles, and are at the dbtance of eighteen centuries
from thjem, are to take the patristical tradition of their oral tra-
ditions as binding our consciences to belief. Such an argument,
I. must say, carries with it much more than its own refutation.

There remain a few other passages, which are sometimes ad-
duced by the Romanists on this subject, which it may be well
to notice before we pass on ; but they are precisely similar in
character to that given above from the Epistle to the Thessa-
lonians, and need no other explanation than what bas been given
for that Thus the Apostle says to the Corinthians, ^* I praise
you brethren that ye remember me in all things, and keep the
ordinances \wm^w%tt traditions'] as I delivered them to you."
(I Cor. xi. 2.) Well; what were these traditions? Were they
anything more than what we have in Scripture; and if they did
include more, where is the informant who will .certify us of them ?,
Resolve these two questions, and then proceed to apply the pas-
sage accordingly ; but until these questions are satisfactorily re-
solved, the passage will prove no more than that the Corinthians

4S4 iOBIPTm TBS SOLS ntPALLISLS

iii right in foltowiog the pnecepts which the Apostle had given
them, which nobody doubta. And we may observe that the
Apostle has told us, in a subsequent part of the same chapter,
what one of these traditions was, viz., the institution of the Liord's
Supper (See ver. 23 d».), and thus we see that the onl j one of
these traditions which is mentioned, we have (as we might ex-
pect) in the Scriptures of the Evangelists.

Again, the Apostle says, *' If any man seem to be contentious,
we have no such custom, neither the churches of Grod." (ib. ver.
16.) Now, to make this observation practically applicable to our
times, we must have satisfactory evidence what the customs of
the Church when under the superintendence of the Apostles
were ; and to make these customs binding upon the Church of
our day, we must know that they were intended to be binding
upon subsequent ages. I suspect, therefore, that the utmost we
shall be able to get from the passage, (and an important and
useful admonition too, and one which it were to be wished had
been more attended to by many,) is that the peace of the Church
ought not to be disturbed by individuals for the' sake of their pri-
vate fancies, in matters of external order not involving anything
unlawful ; but that the custom of *' the churches of &>d" ought
to be followed.

Moreover, the Apostle, further on in the same chapter, says,
*^ The rest will I set in order when I come," (v. 34.) so that he
might have given some directions which we do not find in his Epis-
tle ; and| of course, it is most conveniently assumed that these un-
written directions comprised a great deal of important matter
respecting ordination and the sacraments, to be met with nowhere
in Scripture, "nef/Aer," says Bellarmine, **ean the heretics
prove the contrary.^ This closing challenge to us to prove the
contrary i is certainly somewhat amusing ; but the learned con-
troversialist should have recollected that it is a two-edsed weapon,
for fjoe can just as well shape out St. Paul's *' ordering" to our
liking, and say that it had reference only to some minor points,
and then add, '' neither can the Romanists prove the contrary,"
and then the balance will be even ; nay, I think it will incline
in our favour, for the burthen of proof does rest upon those who
assert that it had reference to important points not mentioned in
any part of the New Testament, and a still further and equally
weighty burthen of proof in behalf of the preservation of those
directions.

Lastly, St. John says, << Having many things to write unto
you, I would not write with paper and ink ; but I trust to come
unto you and speak face to face." (2 John 12, and similarly 3
John 13 — 14.) '' Hence," says Bellarmine, ^ many things were
spoken by the Apostle which are not written." No doubt there

WLVLM AND JJTDQM IN BXLIOION. ,4*^5

were, and when any one can certify us what they were, we are
ready to receive them with reverence and delight.

These, as far as I am aware, are all the texts usually pro-
duced in support of the views of our opponents, and certainly
they are all that need any answer.

With respect, then, to all these passages, 1 would commend to'
Mr. Keble's and the reader's perusal, the passage with which
the former has himself supplied us from Bishop Taylor ; of whom,
notwithstanding all that he has written against such notions, Mr.
Keble would fain make us believe that he was on his side of the
question.

** Because," says the bishop, " the books of Scripture were
not all written at once, nor at once communicated, nor at once
received ; therefore the churches of God at first, were forced to
trust their memories, and to try the doctrines by appealing to the
memories of others, i, e. to the consenting report and faith de-
livered and preached to other churches, especially the chiefest,
where the memory of the Apostles was recent and permanent.
The mysteriousness of Christ's priesthood, the perfection of his
sacrifice, and the unity of it, Christ's advocation and intercession
for us in heaven, might very well be accounted traditions before
St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was admitted for canonical ;
but now they are written truths, and if thet had hot been

WRITTBIf , IT is LIKBLT WE SHOULD HAVE LOST THEM. But this Way

could not long be necessary, and could not long be isArE."^

This is precisely that for which we contend, that though in the
Apostolic age, before the Scriptures were written or in circula-
tion in the Church, and where men had been instructed by the
,oral teaching of the Apostles themselves, or their immediate dis-
ciples under the sanction of the Apostles, those oral instructions
connected with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and what
Scriptures of the New were accessible, formed the rule of faith;
yet that the mode of conveying those oral instructions, through
a successional delivery by fallible men, '' could not long be safe."
We are not obliged precisely to fix the time when or the persons
to whom this observation first applied. Circumstances mieht ren-
der it applicable in some cases eaHier tha,n in others. All with
which we are practically concerned is our own case ; and with
respect to that, we contend that we are left utterly destitute of
any sufficient evidence to substantiate to us any doctrine or state-
ment of the Apostles but what we find in Scripture. We are
removed eighteen centuries from them, and for toe traditions of
the first three centuries, we have but the scanty, mutilated, and
probably in some respects corrupted, remains of some dozen

1 Works z. 4»5. (Serm. p. U8.)

W ft*

*tt ■CltPTVEl TBI BOLK IRFAXXaiJI

writer*, ODited with some notoriouily spariou Htnrgiea. Where,
theo, I would ask, are the materials from which to extract anj
he catholic eonaent of that
s themselves did not (as we
of the principal churches in
primary and most elementarj
therefore, was not even 'Aen
9 now, sixteen centuries lat«.

18. which may be derived from
criptures of the New Testa-
hicn they were written.
; much to uree, showing, as
e never intenaed to form the
ays, thai if the Apostles had
to writii^, they would have
lilar book. But they either
ir Epistles, as occaaioa oflered,
ohn, and in them treated of

taken by our opponents on

to determine ; for while ther

^em to wish it to be Ihonght, that they do not i^mpathize with

the views of the Romanists on this point, the diSerence seems to

me to be more apparent than real, and the appearance of it to

DDception of the real sentiments of the Ro-

,when Mr. Newman snms up the objections

:his groiind,4e mentions among them several

re attributes ihem to others, from whom be

e that he diSers, he has bimself in other

rk distinctly maintained. There is, indeed,

d by our opponents on this whole subject, a

^ree of confuuon and inconsistency, arising

r a distinction between their views and those

ch does not exist.

Mr. Newman says, " They ft. e. the Romanists] observe, it

[the New Testament] is but an incomplete document on the very

face of it. There is no harmony or consistency in its parts. [Do

the Romanists maintain thi^T] There is no code of command-

ments, no list of fundamentals. It comprises four lives of Cbrifit,

written for different portions of the Church, and not tendit^ to

make up one whole. Then follow epistles written to particular

Churches on particular occasions, and preserved, (aa far as there

can be accident in the world,) accidentally. Some books,'as the

I B«lliim. D* VMb. Dm. lib. 4. t. i.

lOLB AITD nnMB IK SKUSIOH. 437

Epiitle to tbe Laodiceans, are altogether lost ; otben are pre-
served odIj in a traiulation, as perhaps the Gmpel of St Matthew,
and the Epiatle to tbe Hebrews ; some delirered down with barelj
sufficient evidencs for their genuineness, as the second Epistle of
St. Peter. Nor were they generally received as one volume till
the fourth century. These are disproofs, it may be said, of any
intention, either in the course of Providence, or in tbe writers,
that tbe very books of Scriptv
Canon of faitb, that is, that tl
AIho, the office of the Church a
to make it probable that she v
to supply, what Scripture left
other hand, tbe circumstance
veyed by ordinaDces, or by cat
ting, seems an intimation that t
equally authoritative and bin
336,7.)

Now I beg to ask whether e>
not represent Mr. Newman's (
tinctly advocate the conclusion
of faith t" Hear bis own wo
phrase ' rule of faith,' which if
Bible by itself, would seem, in tl ^

properiy to belong to the Bible and Catholic TraditTon taken to-
gether. These two together make up a joint rule." (p. 327.)
And as we have already shown, the view advocated by him and
Mr. Keble, is that the two make a Joint rule in tbe necessary
points of faitb, and in some others tradition forms tbe rule by it-
self,). e.is, in fact, "asecond rule of faith," and one "equally
authoritative and binding with Scripture itself;" for, as Mr.
Keble tells us, "the unwritten word, if it can be any how au-
thenticated, {and the supposition is that it can] must necessarily
demand the same reverence from ns [i. e. as the written Wordl.**
(p. 26.)

Turn we now, however, (for we should be sorry that any part
of the case should be kept back,) to p. 346, and there, to our
utter amazement, we find, in reply to these statements oi the
Romanbts, a pro4»ed defence of the truth, that Scripture is " the
sole canon of our faith."

Here, then, Mr. Newman ha^, in bis desire to appear opposed
to the Romanists, directly and in terms contradicted himself.

But he proceeds to prove this ; and his first proof, that Scrip-
ture is ** the sole canon of our faith," is derived from three " pecu-
liarities" distingulsbii^ it from the " unwritten word" of the Apos-
tles. First, (hat " the New Testament is commonly called a tes-
tament or will," and that " Teatamenti are necessarify writ'

428 soRirruBS thi sole xnfalliblb

/^n/' which strikes oiie as about ai unfortuDate a remark as any
we have yet had to notice. Has Mr. Newman, then, never
heard of a nuncupative will? But if he had observed that nun-
cupative wills had always been fouud liable to manyyraucb and
impositions^ and therefore that it was likely that such a will
should be, through God's mercy, written^ in order to guard
against such frauds and impositions^ there would have been
much force in the remark. Hb conclusion from this, however, is
as follows, that *' granting tradition and Scripture to come from
the Apostles, it does not therefore follow that their written word
was not, under God's over-ruling guidance, designed for a parti*
cular purpose^ for which their word unwritten was not designed,"
(p. 346.) ; which seems to me a conclusion which falls far short
of the premises, when it is asserted that Testaments must neces-
sarily be written ; for one would suppose from that, not merely
that the written ^n^rd was designed to serve a ^* particular pur-
pose/* for which the word unwritten was not designed, but that
it was absolutely the sole and whole rule of faith.

The second peculiarity is, that Scripture only is inspired, that
h as to the words, while tradition is only so as to its substance.
(pp. 346, 7 ; and see Mr. Keble, p. 107.) The " third peculiari-
ty" is, that " Scripture alone contains what remains to us of our
Lord's teaching." (p. 347.)

On the ground, then, of these three peculiarities^ it is con-
tended that Scripture is <' the sole canon of our faith ;" while it
is at the same time impressed upon us, that the phrase ''rule of
faith'* belongs to '< the Bible and catholic tradition taken to-
gether.*'

In the succeeding Lecture (the 13th,) the same orthodoxy, in
terms not in sense^ is retained ; and we there see xlearly the
reason, namely, the consciousness that the Fathers refer to Scrip-
ture as the rule of fait;^.

Referring to the preceding Lecture, Mr. Newman says, that it
was "intended to show how far there is a presumption that
Scripture is what is commonly called * the rule of faith,' inde-
pendently of the testimony of the Fathers, which is the direct
afkd sufficient proof of it;'' (p. 369.) and therefore we might
suppose a " direct and sufficient proof that it was not made up
of Scripture and tradition taken together. And thi< is so evident
H deduction, that "before proceeding to the Fathers," it was
very necessary for Mr. Newman to tell us what was " the point
to be proved,^^ lest we should think that their language proved
much more than he would be willing to allow. The ^< point to
be proved," then, is this, " that Holy Scripture contains all things
necessary to salvation ; that is, either as being read therein, or
dedttcible therefrom ; not that Scripture is the only ground qf

SULK Un JITDOI in SHJOIOK.

the faith, or ordtnarilr the guide into it and tescber of it, or
tht touree qf ail religious truth whatever, or the ayatem&tizer
of it, or the iutrument of unfolding, illustrating, enforcing, and
applying it ; but that it ta the document of ultimate appeal in
controversy, and the touchstone of all doctrine [i. e. the docu-
ment of appeal and touchstone not to individuals, but to the
Church, and who form the Cburch, and how jon are to get the
decision of the Church, he caonot tell us.] We differ, then, from
the Romanist in this, not in denying that tradition is valuable
[mark the misrepresentation implied in this word] but in main-
taining that bj itself, and without Scripture warrant, it does not
convey to us any article necessary to salvation ; in other words,
that it is not a rule distinct and coordinate, bat sabordinate and
miniatratiTe." (pp. 36S, 70.)

So that though Scripture is "the r
" the only ground of faith ;" no ; for t
ground, even in fundamental points: nor
ligioua truth whatever" for other point
other points of faith are to be derive
Scripture " contains all things necenary
sion forced by the sixth article, bnt ezf
sing that it contains them so obscurely, th(
except the unwritten word assures us that they are there, and
so imperfectly, that we need tradition to give us a complete
represeotatioo of them. And as Scripture contains all such
points, it is necessary to allow that in such points there must be
some Scripture warrant, while it is at the same time maintained
that tradition delivers them to us much better ; for, as Mr. Keble
tells us, for the full doctrines of the Trinity, incarnadon, &c.,
we are indebted to tradition.

And this is called, differing from the Romanists, a mistake
which we have already pointed out. And tbe evident contra-
diction in these statements is attempted to be got over, by saying
that tradition is "not a rule distinct and co-ordinate, out sub-
ordinate and ministrative," a mere ju^le of words ; for if tradi-
tion is an unwritten word of God, and conveys to us with cer-
tainty the full revelation of tbe truths which are but indistinctlj
revealed in Scripture, (as both Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble
contend,) it tt a rule "distinct and co-ordinate," whether they
choose to call it so or not; and it is a mere mystificatitxi of the
subject to draw these verbal but unreal distinctions, and one
calculated only to deceive and mislead the reader. Nay more,
upon this hypotheus, viz., that tradition convey* to as the fall
doctrines of the faith, and that the Scripture " notices" of tbem
are only to be undentood as explained and amplified by tradi-

8CBIFTUSI THX MU IHVALLIBU

ti«o, it ii Scri|iture that ia "subordinate and nuniitratire" to
tradition, and not traditioa to Scripture.

The same sort of explanation is often offered by the Romao-
ists in defence of their alatementa on this subject, as for instance
was done hj Gother. But what says Dean Sherlock to itT '■ We
do not," he says, "chaise them with denying in exprttt
words the authority of the Scripture to be a rule, but with say-
ing thai whixh is equivalent to it, That the sensf of it is so
various and uncertain, that no man can be sure of the true
meaning qf it, in the most necessary and fundamental arti-
cles q^ the faith, but by the interpretation and authority qf
the Church, which does effectually divest it of the authority •
qfa rule, for that is my rule which can and must direct me,
which, it seems, is not the Scripture considered ik itself, but
as irUerprtted by the authority of the Church, whiob maxbs

THE FAITH AND IHTCRrBXTATION OF THE OHSRCH, 50T THE SCRIP-
TORES, n IHHUUATK RULE.'"

But these terms serve to hide (I use the words in do oflensive

sense) the confusion, inconsistency, and seif-contradlctioD which

pervade the works of our opponents on this point Indeed, Mr.

Newmao candidly confesses that he can give no reason why the

' view of tradition, as he takes it for granted

ake it an independent inforDMnt in matters of

it be ingenuously confesses that they did not,

we must not, (pp. 34S, 3,) but must be " con-

anonicity of Scripture [a phrase most strange.

aean that Scripture is the canon of the faith]

,} i. e. faith in patristtcal tradition; and so he

lLliho it " subordinate and ministrative,"

DO reason why it should not be called, accord-

t, "distinct and co-ordinate," except that the

> so, a tcderably good proof that he and the

Fathers did not take the same view of it.

Such is the Inbyrinth of c^Hifusion into which Mr. Newman
has thrown himself that he contradicts himself over and over
again within a few ftages. Thus, speaking of the " consent of
the Fathers" on this point, he says, " If any but the Scripture
had pretensions to be an oracle of faith, would not the first suc-
cessors of the AposUes be that oracle? must not they, if any,
have possessed the authoritative traditions of the Apostles f"
(p. 840,) and that " the tradition of the Fathers" " witnesses not
only that Scripture is the record, but that if is the sole record of
SBTing truth," (p. 348); and then in the very next page be says,
' ** ft n»y be asked, if Scripture be, as has been above represent-

I A Pspiat DM iniK*pr«Miit«d, &e. p. IB.

BULI AND JUDOK IN BELIOION. 431

ed, hut the document of appeal, and catholic tradition the au»
thoritative teacher of Christians, how is it, &c. (p. 34S.) So
that from an intimation that Scripture is the alone oracle of
faith, that the early Fathers did not possess the authoritative
traditions of the Apostles, and that Scripture is the sole record
of savine truth— confessions wrung from him by the testimony
of the fathers, — we jump directly to the observation that Scrip-
ture is but the document of appeal, and catholic tradition the
authoritative teacher of Christians.

All this inconsistency arises from Mr. Newman having adopted
the principles of Romanism on this point, while he wishes never-
theless to make it appear (even perhaps to himself) that there
is some difierence between him and the Komanists, and therefore
he takes refuge in the labyrinth of words, through which, having
led his readers backwards and forwards, he brmgs them out at
last, (many of them quite unconsciously,) to the very standard of
Romanism from which they started.

The same remark applies to Mr. Keble and Dr. Pusey. Thus
the former, while he tells us distinctly in one part that Scripture
and tradition make up together the rule of faith, (p. 82,) in
another speaks of ** reversing the claim of Scripture to be sole
and paramount as a rule of faith." (p. 31.) With respect to the
latter, notwithstanding the distinctions he has attempted to
draw in his '' Letter" between his views and those of the koman-
ists, it b only necessary to compare the remarks be has there
made with the extract given from him above,^ to see that the
distinctions are but verbal and not real, being precisely the same
as those of Mr. Newman just noticed.

I should also remark here, that another means adopted by our
opponents to get over their difficulties on this ppint, is by tacitly
limiting the meaning of the word *' faith" to the necessary faith ^
or that which is necessary to be believed in order to salva-
tion. Thus Dr. Pusey tells us that ** the doctrines of the creeds
only are articles qf/aith, or, ' necessary to be believed in order
to salvation ;' " and consequently, when Scripture is called the
rule of faith, or ** the sole authoritative source of the faith," it
means of** things to be believed in order to salvation;"* and con-
sequently there is left a very goodly portion of things which are
not ** articles of faith," but, n(^verthelese, are (as by a very nice
distinction he afterwards calls them) '* subjects of belief," to
fall to the lot of tradition only ; nay, it would, appear from the
above language, that all but the articles in the creeds belong to
tradition ; and, with respect to those articles, the creeds are the

I 8m p. 41 — 43 Above.

t Dr. Pafey*t Lett, to Bp. of Oxford, pp. 37—30,

4S2 lOBIPTUBZ TBI lOtX tlfr^LUKLK

authoritative interpreter of Scripture; ao that bow much b left
to Scripture the reader may easily judge.

What may be the opinion of the reader as to this attempt to
mjitify him, bj this use of words in a peculiar aensei I know
not ; but to me it appears to savour very much of diaii^eDuoiu-

f mean to say that ali the doctrines which God
er revealed to us, are not " articles of (aithf
i he mean by faith, or who authorized him .to
ith to the fundamentals of the faith w to say
ith is comprised b " the creed ^" Not, certain-
God. It is quite true that the phrases "the
of faith," are sometimes used by the Fathers to
pal articles of failh; and that mc^em theologians
have used the phrase " the faith" in the same technical sense.
But Dr. Pusey knows well that this is do defence for one who
denies that any but these articles are articles of faith ; which
can only be true, on the suppositi«i either that God baa spoken
nothing but these, or that the other parts of God's word are not
objects of faith. Whatever reli^us truth God has delivered to
~ r. Pusey shall prove
rhicb is in subMance
■ligious tniths so de-
truths of a nmilar
ie advantage to his
18 limiting the meao-
hodox language, and
! of faith ; while he
ns to admit,
dition is in aubstanre
-mant, and must be
f faith, as giving the
ed in Scripture, and
not in Scripture, it
iw any real distinc-
Itomanists; and the
cies and self-con tra-
:hese self-contradic-
te Romanists as by

aur (^ponents seems
made up of Scrip-
s Scripture contains
tbscure and imper-
«y, in fact, allow,)

MtOM 4ND JUDOB IN RSUOIOll* 489

therefore, taking the word faith to mean the nece^ary faitA,
Scripture may be called^ in some sense^ the rule of faith.

It is quite evident, however, that in all this maDagemeot
and straioiDg of the sense of words there is some object to be
gained in showing how the phrase, rule of faith, ndaj somehow
or other, consistently with their views, be applied to Scripture ; .
and that object is an appearance of agreement with the Fathers,
who dp so call it. And Mr. Newman candidly confesses that they
so apply this phrase, not on any grounds of reason^ (for according
to their views i^ is not so applicable,) but because there is
a '< consent of IFathers*' that such is the case,^ (as no doubt
there is ;) and the reason why they object to the representations
of the Romanists as to the imperfect structure of the New Tes-
tament for a rule of faith is not from their thinking the obser-
vations inapplicable in the abstract, but because they think it
undesirable to do more than just receive the representations of
the Fathers on the point, and rest satisfied with them without
going further, though indeed, they themselves do this only as to
the lett^ and not as to the spirit. And they seem to be as fear-
ful here as they were with respect to the evidences for the inspi-
ration of the IVew Testament, that if you do but exercise your
reason to judge of any part of the foundation upon which your
faith is resting, you will immediately relinquish it, as unworthy
your confidence. And, according to their view of things, these
fears are not without foundation ; for, if all appearances are
against Scripture being an adequate rule of faith, and it is to be
believed, nevertheless that it is. so, on the testimony of a few Fa-
thers, then the less said about it the better. I shall only say,
however, that having no such fears, I am not at all alarmed at
seeing reason inquire into the matter,

I shall now, therefore, venture to call the attention of reason
to this matter, and beg it to view very narrowly the structure of
the New Testament, and see the stability of the foundation upon
which is built the truth that Holy Scripture is fitted by its
structure to be the rule of faith and practice in at least all vital
points.

Let me ask, then, fifst. For what were the gospels composed ?
Were they not written to give men a complete account of the
Christian religbn ; and are we to suppose that such accounts,
written by Apostles, or published under the authority of Apos-
tles, would fail to deliver all the vital points at least of that re-
ligion 7

Of the Gospel of St Matthew, Eusebius tells us that << Mat-
thew having preached first to the Hebrews, and being about to

1 See pp. 889, 840.
VOL. I. 0 0

4M soBimrtB tbm mm it»jajjmm

g« k> other nations, wrote the Gospel according to him in bis
own language, supplying by writing the want of his presence and
oonv^rse among those whom he was about to leave."*

Did he ieave, then, any vital doctrine unnoticed in this book
80 written for' such a purpose?

Or does the Gospel of St Mark, penned by him as the Gospel
preached by St. Peter, and sanctioned by Peter,* leave out any
vital part of the Gospel preached by Peter T The especial ob-
ject of St. Peter in having this Gospel written was, if we believe
the common patrbticalinferpretation of 2 Pet. i. 15, (and which
carries upon it an air of great probability), to ensure to his fol-
lowers a knowledge of the great truths of Christianity, which
shows how little he was wHIing to trust them to oral tradition.

Besides these, we have the Gospel of St. Luke» professing to
give Theophilus ** a declaration of tho9e things which were most
surely believtcP^ among Christians, that he might ** know the cer-
tainty of those things wherein he had been instructed.^*

Still further!— 7%«*c three Oospels were reviewed by St.
John^ and published with his sanction^ and he himself added
a fourth^ to supply what he considered desirable to 'make up
a complete account of our hordes l\f^ and doctrine.* And,
connected with this fact, those words towards the . close of his
Gospel ape more especially observable, as favourable t6 our view,
in which he says, " And many other signs truly did Jesus in the
presence of his disciples, wliich are not written in this book.
But these are written that ye might believe thai Jesus is the
Christ the SonofGod^ and that believing ye might have life
through his nameJ^ (John xx. 30, 81.)

And these accounts of the Gospel of Jesds .Christ, let us ob-
serve, were written for the information of mankind at large, not
as documents for the private use of the pastors of the Church ;
and were diligently distributed for that purpose by the eariiest
teachers of Christianity;^ which is an important consideration
in judging of their fitness to be the rule of faith to mankind.

If, then, these four Gt)epels do not fully and clearly deliver aH
the important doctrines of Christianity, I know not where we
are to look for them.

But we are not left with these only; we have, besides them,
above twenty Epistles, written by several of the Apostles to
various Churches and individuals, in order to explain still more

1 Lib. iii. c. 24. See, alio, Cbrje. in Katth. bom. 1. ; and Op. Imp. in BCitth.
Prafat
< Bee p. 88t ab^te.
s See Eoaeb. Hiat Eccl. UK ill e. S4. See^ abo, Sp^ adv. H«r. in bcr. ftl.

4 See Bwab. H. E.Ub. ill e. S7.

(Mj and cloarlj the ChriatqiQ foitb. ' Now tbeee^ I adrpity were
written as oecasioo offered ; and if the whole of the New Tes-
tament bad consisted of such writings^ the objections of the Ro-
manists on this head might haye had some foundation ; but, as
it is, these Epistles are iperelj the additional ^explanations vouch-
safed us for our guidance and comfort, beyond the more summary
accounts given us by tbe Evangelists; explanations in the ab-
sence of which, much certainly of the light now enjoyed would
have been wanting^ and which, on account of the inspiration of
their authors, form part of the divine rule of faith and practice.
But had we been without these Epistles and the book of Revela-
tion, the diyine rule of faith and practice would have been limit-
ed to the four Gospels, for the very same reason that it is now
limited to the Scriptures we possess, namely, that they only would
have possessed any certain title to be considered as the word of
God.

To all which we may add, that one of the earliest Christian
writers^ Irenaeus, .expressly tells us, that what the Apostles first
preached that they afterwards wrote in the Scriptures.^

The argument here urged ia so clear and evident, that even
Mr« Newman himself, when professing to oppose the Romanists,
and show that Scripture a tbe canon of the iaith, (and ortho-
doxy preserved, as we have already seen, in tmme and words
only, for hisreal meaning is in substance precisely the same as
that of the Romanists,) actually adopts it. After quoting with
approbation a remark of Bishop Taylor's that ** our Lord's
teaching contains all things necessary to salvation," (p. 357,) of
which teaching he holds bcripture to be the sole record, he re-
marks, ** The , doctrines of our faith are really promulgated by
Christ himself. There is no truth which St. Paul or St John de*
clare, which he does not anticipate . « • • If we had only the
Gospels, we should have in them all the great doctrines of the
Epistles, all tbe articles of the Creed .... And this is one
main reason, it would seem, why tfie Epistles are vouchsafed to
us; not somuch to increase the Gospel, as to serve as a com-
ment upon it, as taught by our Lord, to bring out and fix His
sacred sense^ lest tve should by any means miss it ;" (pp. 360,
1.) And yet, after all, we must go (Mr. Newman says) to tra*
dition for tbe full' development of those truths, for they are
Beitber/u//y nor clearly revealed in Scripture, and the chances
are seriously against any one being able to learn them from
Scripture. And in order to obtige us, if possible^ to receive *< tra-
dition" as a part of the rule of (aith, the Scriptural foundation
of some of the most importi^nt doctrines of the faith is cavilled

1 IrMi. adT. HiK, iii. 1.

436 aCSIFTUIEE the bole IlfFlLUBU

at aaqnite insufficient. Now these tvo Btatetnents can only be
reconciled onpne of these tn-o suppositions, either that the Apos-
tles purposely kept back something, when they profeBsed to give
mankind an account of our Lord's leaching, and explain in their
Epistles his doctrine, or that, though they were inspired, they
were unable tu'give a clear account of the matter; on whicn
latter suppoeition, by the way, the tradition of their oral teach*
ingwill not g;ive us much additional help.

This is another rather curious specinKU, as it appears to me,
of the windings of Mr. Newman's labyrinth.
I proceed to notice,

(3) The arguments and ohjections wtuch may be'derived from
other general conriderallons.
Ana here let us observe.

First. — ^The committal of the Gospel to writing at all, is a
nt in favour of the whole revealed faith, that is,
at points at leesl,'baving been committed to writing,
it written at all, and not left to be commuuica-
d by the oral teaching of the disciples of the Apos-
tuccessors to the end of the world ; but that its
vonld thus have been endangered, that Is In other
r the uncertainty of " tradition V And if they
writing one part of the doctrines tbey delivered
t, did not the same reason operate equally strongly
for committing the whole to writing ; that is, all that was of vital
importance to Cbristiang ? Why should any important part be left
out in all the four accounts, when they were written for the pur-
pose of giving the Christian world the best infbrmation on the
doctrines of Christianity 7 Is it reasonable to suppose that this
should be the case 1 especially when we recollect that the first
three were reviewed by the author of the last, and that last
written to make their account more complete 1 Can we venture
to think them guilty of such an inconsistency^ guided as they
were by the Divine Spirit in all such matters f

And the same argument operates with equal force iu favour
of their having delivered tltosa doctrines clearly and fhlly. For
the great object'to be attained by committing them to writing,
was to prevent their being corrupted through the imperfections
or corrupt prejudices of human nature; but if they were not
clearly ana fully delivered, and it was leli to " tradition" to hand
down the " full doctrine," (hey would be almost as much exposed
to such corruption as tttey would have been had tbey not been
written ; and there cannot be charged upon the writers any in-
capability of deUvering those doctrines clearly and fully.

Secwdiy. — Patristical tradition cannot be, practically, any
part of the rule of faith or practice to men in general, for it has

IVM Mt nrMi Hi fennioif. ^ 497

to be eVblretl from a multitude of Volumes, br a process which
renders it practically inaccessible to the great bnllt of mankiad.

Far how are men, geaerally, to obtain a knowledge of what is
^called primitive catholic consent t Supposing it to be deducible
from the records of antiqaity which remain ta us (which It is not,)
bow are men generally to Snd out that which is derived fVom a
carefitl comparison and survey of a whole library of volumes f

But it may be said, it is delivered to them by others whom
they may s»fely trust. But what assurance have they of thisT
Is it so very easy a task to determine infallibly the opinion of the
whole primitive church respecting any contested doctrine T Oh !
yes, saith Mr. Newman, "the doctrine of the Apostles" is "an
historical fact, aod ascertninable as other facts, and obvious to
the intelligence of inquirers as other facts;" " the charch enforces
a fact — Apostolical tradition." (pp. 334^ 5.)

Now we have already so fully entered upon this point in a
former chapter, that I need not, 1 hope, add
the overthrow of such a notion. It is only
one at all acquainted with the matter, could
tioD. And, in truth, Mr. Newman himself sei
o6viou»/act mHj be anything but ohvioua t<
be is forced, at last, to take refuge, like the fi
fallibility of the Church, and, "that doctrin<
sidered as an hutorical fact, is true also becautie she [the Church]
teaches it" (p. 236.) ; ahd therefore, if any one ventures to think
for himself as to wliat this "fact" is by n survey of the writings
of -the Fathers, if he concludes contrary to what " the Church"
teaches, his mouth is stopped at once by the plea of the infalli-
bility of the Church, so that he might as well spare himself the
labour of inquiring, and lake all at once from the hands of the
Charch, which, indeed, is the happy state to which our oppo-
nents seem to wisli to reduce ua. Thus, nil questions are, at labt,
swallowed up in the quicksand of church-inrallibility.

And tbn curioas part of this matter is, that Mr. Newman, in-
stead of boldly telling us, tike the Romanists, what and who " the
Church" is, fairly intimates that he is at a toss to do so; but asks
with great simplicity whether we cannot consider our own
church as able to answer the purpose; so that after all the high-
Bounding words about the teaching of " the Church," — " the ca-
tiwlic Church," it turns out that, practically, this means the
teaching of a company of men, occupying a section of a litttt
island at one corner of the world. Surely, says Mr. N-, she
" transmits the antient catholic faith simply and intelligibly ;"
" to follow the Church, then, in this day, is to follow tht
Jiray.er-k9»ki." (p. 913.) No doubt' we who belong to ber think
•»■ But bow did we Jlnd out that die " transmits the antietrt

4M soRimnp the soul iitfauiuk

>

catholic (aith f' Are all men botiD4 to take her word for it?
So, tben, after all this vapouriog about the uiiiEiIii)>ility of the
Chorch's teachtngy there is no teaching to be found to which
such a high-sounding name belong To talk, indeedy of the
teaching of the Church catholic^ either as consisting of the whole
body ofprofessing Christians, or of the true children of God, or
even of the pastors of the Church, is a manifest absurdity ; for
the suffrages of either body never were and never could be col-
lected, and to such a consent only could the idea of freedom from
error be attached.

Patristical tradition, then, cannot be practically any part of
the infallible rule of faith to mankind ; because, to the majority,
it is not accesdble^ The doubt and uncertainty hanging over it
in all casesy are to the great majority of mankind doubled ; aikl
it comes to themy at least, with such a probability of alloy and
corruption, that it absolutely needs to be tried and tested by
some touchstone which can be depended upon, to show them
what in it may be agreeable to truth, and what otherwise. In
other words, instead qf being any part qfthe rule^ it must be
itseif judged by the rule.

Thirdly. — So clearly is Scripture set forth by the Fathers as
the rule of faith, that our opponents are forced to admit that in
necessary points, (to which, tor their own purposes, they would
fain limit the use of the word faith,) that title cannot be denied
to Scripture. This forced admisision, then, is, as it respects these
points at least, fatal to. their cause ; for if in these it is, as they in
wards admit, the canon or rule of faith, then tradition is not in
these points any part of the rule.

For that which is the rule of faith to men in necessary points,
is that by which necessary faith is to be regulated and measured^
and it Ib contrary to the nature of a rule, to receive either addi-
tion or diminution in those respects for which it is a rule. And
so the Fathers say. Thus Chrysostom, who calls the Scriptures
''the rule of all things,"' that is, all religious truth, says, *< A rule
receives neither addition or diminution, otherwise it ceases to be
a rule."' And Basil, reproving Eunomius for saying that the
creed, while he called it a standard and rule, needed an addition
to make it more accurate,' observes that this is the extreme of
folly, for that '' a standard and rule, as long as nothing is want-
ing to them to make them a standard ^nd rule, admit no addition
for greater accuracy. For an addition k wanting only to sup-

1 See luder Cbrjeottom io ch. 10 below.

< *0 Kmnm our* irt^9^%Tt» M/n m^mtpt/ra h^ff^ Mw <ro MtMNr umA ianKK»€u In Epi,
•d Phil, c 8. bom. IS. (Bd. Bened. torn. xi. p. SS3.)

> n^iiira^iir MM^iAi mu hH^m> A4v« Bvomd. lib. I. ^ 6. B4 Beaei toa^Ly^
S13

Mmm Am ^raw m Bsymoit, 439

ply a defi^t ; bat if tbey wer% imperfecty they could not properly
be called by these names."^

True it is that the Fathers often apply the phrase ** the rule <^
faith" to a brief summary of the leading articles of the faith ; but
then we must consider the purpose fpr which it was intended.
It was an elementary summary of the chief articles of the faith,
intended to serve as the Church's Confession ; and thus was in that
sense the Church's Rule of Faith. It had its origin, as we have
seen Jn a former chapter, in the words of our Lord ; and proba-
bly consisted originally of nothing more than the confession of the
Trinity) including the identification of the Son with Jesus Christ ;
and the reason for this selection may clearly be traced to the
words in which our Lord instituted the rite of baptism.' The
creed, then, was strictly ** the ruk of faith," ,/br the purpose /or
which it was a rule; that is, as the Church's elementary con-
fession. As lonff as it remained the Church's Confession, it admit-
ted neither admtion nor diminution, but by the same authority
that made it

When, therefore, the Fathers applied the term rule of faith to
Scripture, they meant that in those ren>ects in which it was a
rule, it was complete and perfect ; it admitted neither addition
nor dinuQution. In what respects, then, did they so receive it ?
Not with regard merely to the Church's Confession. No ; but
with reference to the whole faith, or at least the whole necessary
faith, by which necessary belief was to be r^ulated and mea-
sured ; admitting^ neither addition nor diminution, for the purpose
for which it was a rule. So that at least in all the points of faith
required Jbr salvation^ if it is the rule, it is the whole of the
rule, containing a revelation of all doctrines necessary to be
known, and a revelation going to the JuU extent of what is re*
quired to be known respecting them : otherwise it would not be
the ruk for necessary faitb. To say, then, that Scripture is the
rule of faith in necessaries, but that, nevertheless, the full doc-
trines of Christianity in some fundamental points are only to be
found in Scripture and tradition taken together as a jmnt rule,
is of all inconsistencies the roost absurd.* ^

I TtvTp h ctvTo luu TH trX"^^ «e^(t9<ctc nfjttiw tm^y utm tuu rwr$ itxof xmft^it^
(m- 0 >«M TOf tutrmt u r9^mr»rh tuu o ymfjmy im «v (*»hi w^ tov ntum wm um ym*

xiic A utr^xyrfCt oo/t rm Wftnyoptm *twnm irymi «r wt tvyx^om. Id. lb. pp. 313,

S14.

fl See chapter 4.

s In Uie mboft reMoaing^ I luve aoppoMd that whsn tka Ftlhan oallad Um
Scriptara Um rale of Uithf Uiey might mean onlj in pointa required for aalTa*
tioo ; beeanae this cannot be denied. I ahaU ahow hereaAar, howoTer, that they,
or at leaat mukj of them, meant the phraae to ^Man maeh move and that thqr
regarded Seripiara aa maaaoring and boanding thevAa/e Cuth, inaamoch aait
bounded what eoold be known to be divine rgvtlatigtu

I

I

I

\

440

n

Fourthly. — Our oppoDenti aUow
Scripture is the document of proof;
all such doctriues^ is absoluteW Wfl
the J did not make, might be ferr/ ^
principles, by the testimony of | ^ ^ je u

Hon is. absolutely summarif^ \^\ ^^^^ > ^

fundamentals of' the faith ^^\.^W A have noi

For if Scripture proof }^ ^\tj f j make their
whether it be required fr jf f Al^ d against ours."^
individual, such prop^ ^1* %i% . ther remarked, that wu
proof can exist only j 1\} ^ iC sense of Scripture, and de-

Any amplification ^jf.f$ .e may then, as Scotus has also

any other source, itf^ at Xhej can be manipestlt provkd

conveyed, recw | ? ,i « the (^tholic Church** was to Je-

doctrine more 4 ^ that black was white, we might then

cannot have %^ ^at it might be "manifestly proved" from

Scripture p^ aer what &;rip(ure says, but if the Catholic

in such po (hat it says tbb or that, thieo this or that may be

claratiop ^ proved'* out of it*

be m^ ^^^ it would be worth knowing how it is that since tra*
belief ^^ unwritten Word of God, we have any need of Scrip-
vea' '^^fooff ^^^^ tradition has taught ua the faith, and that more
ur 0^L nfid fully than Scripture can. It seems, at any rate>
^\e^ trouble to eo any farther. For if tradition is in sub-
ff^ ti\e Word of trod, it proves the truth of what it delivers,
Zgwell as Scripture oould; for one word of God is worthy of
^giial reverence, and is of equal authority, with any other. " If
00 will be impartial, says Mr. JCeble, '^ we cannot hide it from
^rselveathatGi>d*8 unwritten word, if it can beairy^ bow authen-
ticated» [and the poaitioh contended fojr is that it can be authen-
ticated, and is to be found in the Fathers,] must necessarily de-
mMd the «am« reverence from us [L e. as his written word,] and
fbr exactly the same reason, because it is his word.*". Certainly ;
and therelbre to send us to the obscure notices of Scripture u>r
proois of a doctrine which the " unwritten word** has aeUvered
to us clearly and fully, is most unreasonable* So that at best
this observatioaas to *^ tradition teaching and Scripture provinr,**
i% io the sense in which they mean it, full of absurdity and m«
consistency.

There is a sense^ indeed, in which this phrase, *^ tradition
teaehei^ Scripture proves,'* ia true enouffh ; and states a fact
which occartf in the case of most individuafa, who are first taught

^ Papery noftftonM oa 8cii|itiirai Load. leas. 4to. latro^aeCiMi, p. ia»
* BapljF to Faber, Sd. ad. p. M7.

< p. te.

\

•na AKD fcMz tn sxusioir. 445

Vif, then, they are merely trifling with us

V*^ eyes of men to blind them to the real

y 'v Papists do when tbey &end us to the

\ ;; intallibility of their church, which if

fx \ 'hey quote for it as proof, we are

the II y ^ suppose that texts quoted by

.im rest aU '|\\^t, can possibly mean aoytbing

truth from Scripture, is
her in the first ages,

jbligatory upo. \ j|^-',
ipture; and to So. ^^i^;^thet
i able to examine for i. 4 I'^Vt'^ ^^
>ie sole ground of his faith. ' -Hi ' '■» whatever other way,"
It is DO proof that those who ^i-.-,tation for herself, in the
do Dot learn the doctriuefl of the . l\. the office to catholic

ground </ their faith, that thej ^V'viduals to pretend to

^uainttd toith them through the me. Vnisdemeanoar to.TO
chism, or elementary work. Achild ori, ^*'* wasanysum-

thus take (be doctrines of Christianity up^ on the« points,
parent or teacher, this being all the .satisfacv ?* ^^^ '^^^ ***^
capable of as to the truth of those doctrines, b^ ^^ '"■" P*"""
not, strictly speakiag, traditionary teaching, for b^^ ^^ vrevos-
if he knows his duty, will (whatever ^rmu/a be na^
of in the way of creed or catechism, &.C.) teach tlm;
only for which he has Scripture proof. And the chii
comes to years of responsibility to God, is bound to e
book of God for himself, as far as he is able, to i
what he has been taught is agreeable to what is there deU^ r*^ ^
and thus to learn his faith, as a being responsible to God, [,**-
Scripture as the sole ground of it. Nor is there any itic<„^
tency, as our opponetits insinuate, in giving what is called "tlu
Apostles' creed," as the summary of our belief, and yet assert,
ii^ that the Scripture is the sole ground of our faith, and th&t
we have learned the faith from Scripture, iDasmuch as the rea.
•OR why we receive that creed is, as our church expresses it,
because it may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy
Scripture. (Art. 8.) And as the language of the early church
may have greater weight with our opponents in proof of this, I
will give them an unexceptionable instance of a very early date,
viz., in the laoguage used hy the Fathers assembled at the Synod
aeainst Noetus, who aAer repeating the creed in the asual form
of that period, immediately add, "We maintain these doctrines,

HATIRO LEARITED THHH raOM TBI! DIVIHC SCRimmBS."'

And hence we may observe (he confusion and inconsequential
reasoBing that mark the following obeervatioDof one of the Tract

I Tan— M>ipw, lunatauttt m« tm turn yt^tm. Epipba. bw- H««. S7, E^
Peti>. Ml. i. p. MO.

443

th*j ;et eaj thej. canoot judge, bj/ reaaon qf thair weakneta,
and the obscurenea* qf the Holy f^ritinga. But vthbh mbh

HAVE A HIKD TO FHOOXKD In A GIUAK, IT IS NOT A OONTRAIMCTIOH

THAT OAK STOP THEM. Therefore, Dotwithstaoding this, nnd very
much more of the like nature, which might be alleged against
this way of proceediog, as plainly inconaiatent ; still aincuigst
the weali, who discern not the absurditv, and have not skill to set
their methods one against another, they make their boast of
Scripture proqfa for their religi<Hi, and against ours."' Thus
Mr. Husenbeth tells us,' " Let it be further remarked, that when
the Catholic Church has declared (he sense of BcHpture, and de-
duced certain doctrines from it, we may then, as Scotus has also
remarked, eonSdenth assert that tbeycanbeMAKiPBSTiT provi£d
from Scripture.'" So that if " the Catholic Church" was to ^le-
dare that Scripture said that black was white, we might then
" confidently assert" that it might be " manifestly proved" from
Scripture. No matter what Scripture says, but if the Catholic
Church declares that it says this or that, then this or that may be
" man\ftatly proved" out of it.

Moreover, it would be worth knowing how it is that rince tra-
dition is an unwritten Word of God, we have any netd of Scrip-
ture prtiof, after tradition has taught ua the faith, and that more
clearly and fully than Scripture can. It seems, at any rate,
needless trouble to go any farther. For if tradition is in sub-
•lance the Word of God, it proves the truth of what it deliver*,
as well as Scripture oould ; for one word of God is worthy of
•qual reverence, and is of equal authority) with any other. " If
we will be impartial, says Mr. Keble, " we camot hide it from
osrselvesthatGbd's unwritten word, if it can l>eai^ bow authen-
ticated, [and the pooitioti contended for is that it can be authen-
ticated, and is to b« found in (he Fathers,] must oeceiMrily de-
mand the *ame reverence from us [i. e. as hia written w»rd,] and

ne reason, because it iahis word."' Certainly ;

end ua to the obscure notices of Scripture K>r

le which the " unwritten word" has delivered
fully, is most unraaspnable.

to ^ tradition teaching and Scr

which they mean it, full of a

nse, indeed, in which this phi
e proves," is (ftie enough ; ai
ifl case of moat individuaw, wbi

> Paper/ ndtlbanM M Sdiptan. Land. 1SS8. 4io. lainrfvHiMi, p. IS.
* Jtopl7 u Ftbw, U. td. p. H7.
■p. IS.

mj%M AVD JIJD0B or Bsuoioor. 443

pripcjpally bj creecb and cmtechbmSf which have been handed
down fronn generation to generation, for a longer or shorter time ;
but then tradition ia not here taken as nieamog anything derived
firom the oral teaching of the Apostles, as if we bad anything
which could be consid^ed as coining to us with Apostolical au-
thority,— and the learner is also taught that the truths so de-
livered to him rest altogether upon the authority of Scripture ;
and are obligatory upon him only so far as they are auttu)ri;sed
by Scripture ; lind to Scripture he is exhorted to go, as soon as
he is able to examine for himself, and make Scripture testimony
the sole ground of his faith.

It is no proof that those who have come to years of disciretion
do not learn the doctrines of the faith from Scripture as the sole
ground of their faiths that they have Jipst been made ac-
quainted with them through the medium of a creed,, or cate-
chism, or eletinentary work. A child or uneducated person may
thus take the doctrines of Christianity upon the word of the
parent or teacher, this; being all the satisfaction they may be
capable of as to the truth of those doctrines. But even this is
not, strictly speaking, traditionary teaching, for he who teaches,
if he knows his duty, will (whatever >^>rmu/a be may make use
of in the way of creed or catechism, &c.) teach those doctrines
only for which he has Scripture proof. And the child, when he
comes to years of responsibility to God, is bound to examine the
book of God for himself, as far as he is abk, to see whether
what he has been taught is agreeable to what is there delivered,
and thus to learn his faith, as a being responsible to God, from
Scripture as the sole ground of it. Nor is there any inconsis-
tency, as our opponents insinuate, in giving what is called << the
Apostles' creed," as the summary of our belief, and yet assert-
ing that the Scripture is the sole ground of our faith, and that
we have learned the faith from Scripture, inasmuch as the rea-
son why we receive that creed is, as our church expresses it,
because it may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy
Scripture. (Art. 8.) And as the language of the early church
may have greater weight with our opponents in proof of this, I
will give them an unexceptionable instance of a very early date,
viz., in the language used by the Fathers assembled at the Synod
against Noetus, who after repeating the creed in the usual form
of that period, immediately add, ** We maintain these doctrines,

HAVlJfO LEARHBD THBM PROM THB BIVIIIB SCRIPTURBS.''^

And hence we niay observe the confusion and inconsequential
reasoning that mark the following observationof one of the Tract

I T«v«»M}«^, fmfuAmtfnt «n *rm Bvm >f«#fnr. Epipbaa* |i«r. IfoaC* 67« Ed»
PeUT. vol. i. p. 460.

444 SCSIfTUSB Tn SOLS tm^ASOMtM

writers^ who says, — ^ It uto be observed^ that where teparatista
hold the catholic truth, they hoM it not from Scripture oniy^
FOR others, on the plea of Scriptural authority, deny the same,
[mark the logic of this, that because some plead Scripture ia
defence of error« ther^ore nobody can find the truth in it,] but
from tradition supplied by the Church, wUch has been to them
the key to the ScriptureeJ^*^ As if men could not hold the truth
from Scripture only, where tradition supplied by the Church
may have been, in the first instance, the key to the Scriptures.
"Why this very thing, which they tell us ** it is to be observed*'
cannot be, is preciselv what is contended for by their supposed
friends, Hooker and Archbishop Laud. Speaking of the tradi-
tion supplied by the Church, the Archbishop says, '^ It serves to
work upon the minds of unbelievers to move them to read and to
condder the Scripture. . . And secondly, it serves among novices,
weaklings, and doubters in the faith, to instruct and confirm them
till they may acquaint themselves urith and understand the
Scripture^ which the Church delivers as the Word of Chd. .
... No man can set a better state of the question between
Scripture and tradition than Hooker doth: his words are these ;
— * The Scripture is the ground qf our beli^: the authority
of man (that is ths name he gives to tradition') is the key
which opens the door qf -entr ante into the knowledge qf the
Scripture: "»

The tradition supplied by the Church may be, and perhaps
generally is, the means of first introducing men to a knowledge
of the truths of Scripture; but the ground of faith to one who
has Scripture in his hands, and is sufl^iently capable of judging
to be responsible to God for forming a right judgment, and the
sole infallible ground of faith to all^ is Scripture.

Further, whep we come to inquire what our opponents mean
when they say that Scripture is to be referred fo tor proqf^ we
shall find that, practically, it amounts to nothing. They are
forced to admit it in words because they see plainly that the
Fathers admitted it, while (as in other cases) they in effect alto-
gether deny it. For neither *^ the Church," nor any individual,
may understand Scripture as meaning anything else than what
'< tradition" teaches as its meaning. So that though they talk of
the necessity of going to Scripture for proof, and believing only
what Scripture proves, they, in fact, mean not Scripture, but the
interpretation given to Scripture by *< tradition," that is, in other
words, << traction." Their appeal, therefore, is not to Scripture
proof, but to ^< tradition" saying that Scripture proves it When

. 1 Tract 80. ^S<». a Theie are dte A wKMAop^a wid^ .

s lUp^ to Fiaher, § 16. a. 91 & 96.

BULB A2?D JVDOE Cf BELIQION. 445

talking of Scripture proof, then, they are merely trifling with us
and throwing dust into the eyes of men to blind them to the real
state of the case, just as the rapists do when they send us to the
Scriptures for a proof of the infallibility of their church, which if
we cannot find in the texts they quote for it as proof, we are
rated as infidels for presuming to suppose that texts quoted by
infallibility as meaning this or that, can possibly mean anything
else. *

The Church herself, when proving the truth from Scripture, is
** a witness of catholic truth delivered to her in the first ages,
whether by G)uncils, or by Fathers, or in whatever other way,"
and *< does not claim any gift of interpretatipn for herself, in the
high points in question," but ** hands over the office to catholic
antiquity." ** Much less does she allow individuals to pretend to
it"^ In them it would be a high crime and misdemeanour to. go
to Scripture to judge for themselves, whether there was any suffi-
cient nroof of what the Fathers have delivered on these points,
foip " tne popular view," " that every Christian has the right of
making up bis mind for himself what he is to believe, from per-
sonal and private study of the Scriptures," is '' so very prepoS'
terous" — ** something so very strange and wild/' that Mr. New-
man is '' unable either to discuss or even to impute such an opin-
ion to another."' " In what our articles say of Holy Scripture as
the document of proof, exclusive reference is had to teaching. It
is not said that individuals are to infer the faith, but that the
Church is to prove it from Scripture. . . • • The sole question
in the articles is, how the Church is to teach.^^^ And it is " in
matters of inferior nooment" only th^t either the Church or the
individual *' have room to exercise their own powers."^ So that
both the Church and all individuals are bound hand and foot to
the Fathers, and dare not think of inquiring for themselves what
Scripture means, and what it proves^ but only what '* tradition"
says that it means and proves. And the way in which indivi-
duals are to use the Scriptures, is thus described : — ** We think
90 HARM oAir COMB from. putting the Scripture into the hands of
the laity, [a very gracious concession to God's word, certainly]
allowing them, if they will, to verify ^7 ^U as far as it extends,
the doctrines they have been already taught.^**

Of what use, then, is it to go to the Scriptures at all, for what
difierence is there between believing a doctrine because ** tradi-
tion" declares it, and believing it because '' tradition" says that
Scripture declares it 7 And moreover, by not goins to Scripture,
we avoid the danger of being obliged to believe that Scripture

I Newmtn*! Leet p. 838. > lb. pp. 178, 4. > lb. pp. 8S8, 4.

4 lb. p. 835. 5 Tb^ p. 167.

VOL. I. P P

446 8CBIPTURS THB SOLS INFALLIBLB

means something diflerent to vthat it seems to us to say, which
undeniablj is a trying dose to swallow, however easy it may be
for Mr. Newman to write the prescription, which he thus does
without any apparent hesitation — ** frhen the sense of Scrip*
,turef as interpreted by reason, is contrary to the sense given
to it by" catholic antiquity, toe ought to side with the latter,**
which is part of "the theory ot private judgment,^* **a8,*'he
conceives, " the English Church maintains it.'**^

We are obliged to him for thus, speaking out, because after
all fhis there can be no mistake ; ana we thus clearly see what
their ^favourite saying, that ** tradition teaches and Scripture
proves," really means, viz., that '* tradition teaches and tradition
proves," and t&Rt practically from end to end " tradition" is all
m all ; and that if any one goes to Scripture, it must be not to
ascertain what appears to him to be its meaning, but only to try
to $nd in it a connrmation of those doctrines which *' tradition"
has delivered to him, and thus, instead of ** tradition" being used
for the confirmation of the doctrines derived by us from Scripture,
Scripture is put down into the subordinate office of aflbrmng a
connrmation to what "tradition" has delivered.

Patristical tradition may be, and no doubt is, useful in leading
men to a right interpretation of Scripture, and has a moral per*
suasive power in inducing them to embrace the truth. But to
assert that we must believe only in accordance with what tradi*
tion tells us is the meaning of Scripture, iiB, in fact, to bring us to
tradition as the rule of niith. For the very assertion supposes
that Scripture bears another sense besides that given to it by
tradition. Now a man may believe that other sense to be the
true sense, and that the sense given by tradition in any particular
point is as far from the true meaning' a^ others think his to be.
If, then, he is bound to believe the traditional Interpretation, and
so to believe a doctrine which he cannot find in Scripture, and
the truth of which appears to him only to rest upon tradition, hii
feith in that doctrine, whatever it be, rests upon tradition, and
tradition is his rule of faith. It is an old Koman CkthoHc cavil
against us, that to interpret Scripture bv fancy is the same thing
as to follow fapcy, whicn is very true, though a very Aitile argu-
ment against us. By the same argument, then, to interpret
Scripture by tradition is to follow tradition.

And if the views of the Tractators are correct, the loss of Scrip-
ture altogether would be of no importance. For it contains only
brief and obscure notices of the truth, while *< tradition" delivers
it clearly and ftilly. And when they speak of tradition as the in-

1 pp. 160, 161.

uvtB kMBJmam w uauQiov. 447

terpretar of Scripture, this caAaot be oodentood as If it had 1«m
intrinsic autbori^ than Scripture, because they hdd it to be, in
substaope, equally the word of Ghxi with Scripture. It has an
authority independent of Scripture, as flowing from the same
source. Scripture and tradition are not like a law and a judge's
interpretation of it, but. like two authoritative publications of a
law, of which one is brief and obscure, and the other full and
clear, of which) therefore^ the latter supersedes the former.

All this arises, of course, from the supposition that ** tradition^
is the word of God, in which case I should quite agree with our
opponents, that our reason was not to be put in competition with
it But first let it be proved to be so;^ and, at aoy rate, let us
be spared these contradictory statements, that serve only to catch
the unwary, and perplex the uninitiated reader, and are so little
to the cremt of our common Christianity*

All these self-contradictions spring from our opponents being
comimtted to two opposite systems. Belonging to the Church of
Elngland, and striving to make their views appear con)formable to
ber articles, while at the same time they have embraced and
are endeavouring to inculcate doctrines entirely opposed to them,
and which they were, in fact, intended to repress, their state-
oients are often entirely opposed to one abother. Thus, the con*
cession here made about Scripture being the document of proof,
is evidently forced fit>m them by the 6tfa Article of our Church,
while it is one altogether opposed to their whole system, and is
dsewhere aloaost in terms Contradicted.

I DOW proceed to notice the objections which have been
bfoaght against the notion that Scripture is the sole authorita*
tive rule M* &ith.

Some of these hftve been already noticed in connexion with
the subjects cf previous chapters. Others I shall consider when
pqiiitiag out Scripture as the Judge of controversies, and the two

Elncipal, viz., tne alleged imperfection and obscurity of the
riptures will form the subjects of the two following chapters.
But there are three which I shall notice here.
First, it is objected that Scripture cannot be the sole authori*

t TKm rwd«r May iMoee eftimate tba Talae of the obMrration of Dr. Hook,
tkal (hey who tmplj thai ** the advocates of the EngUah Reformation,'' •• he if
|ilMaed to term then, " elevate tradition above the Bible, or that they olaoe tra-
dkioA oa an equality with it," inaniiate "a gr999 and uneharitabU faUth99d,*'
(Vi«t SersL pu 64.) I thall not imitate Dr. Hook in the vse of euch language,
but thall very willingly leave the matter to the common aense of mankind to de«
leimine ; and that common aense will often give aa tme a verdict at a haa^
ffoaooner, though a divine, wedded to a &vourite hypothetit, and involved in a
bhyrinth of Idgh-eoonding wordt and phratet which terve him in the place of
tnitht and realitiet.

448 SCBIPTUBB THS 80LB IKrALLIBLI

tative rule of faith to men, because a great number of men are
not qualified to deduce tlie faith from it.^

To this objection we have already replied in a measure, but
we shall here endeavour to show more fully bow idle is this cavil
against it. Suppose that a great number of persona were in such
a situation, (which, however, we altogether deny, asjaras re-
gards the fundamentals of the faith,) will that prove that God
has given us any other infallible guide T Will it make patristical
tradition. Councils, or Pope, a sure and divine informant? It is
useless to reply, that if one of them is not so, God has not pro-
vided us with the means of salvation. For the question then
would be, what is necessary to salvation 7 Is it necessary for any
man to believe more than what Scripture plainly teaches? It is
not for us to argue from what we may think it would have been
desirable for (j^ to do, but to accept with thankfulness what he
has done for us, arid act according to the circumstances in
which we find ourselves placed. The question, then, as to
, whether Scripture is or is not the sole rule of faith, must be de-
termined independently of any such considerations as that which
is here urged as an objection to its being so considered.

Moreover, such cases could not prove that, tp men of but com-
mon education, Scripture was not well able to answer the pur-
pose of a rule ; and so, after all, would be but cases of a pecu-
liar kind, not afiecting our position as it regarded persons of any
education.

Mr. Newman, indeed, tells us, that *' the great proportion even
of educated persons have not the accuracy of mmd requisite for
determining** the faith from Scripture, (p. 175) ; and that
'< Scripture is not so clear as to hinder ordinary persons who
read it for themselves from being Sabellians," &c. (p. 178,) which
is as much as to say, that the inspired writers of the Grospels
have so imperfectly fulfilled their professed task of delivering the
Gospel to the world, that even educated persons cannot tell what
they mean ; and to lay the blame of any misunderstanding, not
upon the corrupt prejudices or carelessness of mankind, but upon
inherent obscurity in the inspired Scriptures.

But, further, take the case of even an illiterate man. You
want to instruct him in the truths of Christianity. Can you
teach him what they are, better than our Lord and his Apostles,
who wrote the books they have left us for the instruction of man-
kind at large in the doctrines of the faith ? He will find difficul-
ties in his way (it may be said) in acquiring a knowledge of these

1 See Mr. Newman, Lect. 6, and *^k rational aocoant of the doctrine of J^ernan
Cathotict concerning the Eccleaiaitical Gaide in ContrOTeraiea of Religion, by
R. H., Snd ed. 1673. DImc. ii. c 0. § 41. p. 139.

BVUB AND JUDOB IV BBLIGI09* 449

tmths fioom them. Will he fiod ooDe^ then, in your teaching?
Will be find Mr. Newman's Treatise on Justification, for instance,
an easier wa? of arriving at the truth than SL Paul's account of
the doctrine f

Still further, suppose this illiterate man, wishing to arrive at
the knowledge of the truth, goes first, (lured by the high-sound*
ing terms « Vicar of Christ,*' "Church," " infallibili^," &c*) to a
Romanist for an explanation of this doctrine, and being not quite
satisfied, (as I hope, without offence to our opponents, may be
supposed to be the case,) turns to Mr. Newman, and being so
unfortunate as still ppt to have found what speaks peace to lus
conscience, turns to other interpreters' of tne doctrine of our
Church for aid, and ^ds, upon comparison, that all three speak
different kinguage,and all three stoutly aver that patristical tra*
ditioa is on their side. What is the poor man to do under siich
circumstances ? May he not, without oflence to our opponents,
justly say, I must betake myself to that which all of you agree
to be the word of (jod, and believe that which seems to me to be
authorized by that word t Nay, I beg to ask, what else can he
reasonably dot

Once more, let us suppose such a man to fall unhappily into
the hands of Arians t Alt the three parties he foro^Iy consult-
ed will certainly agripe here, but the Arians will tell bim that
they are altogether wrone^ And here, again, both sides will ap-
peal to patristical tradition ; and the latter will tell bim, that
some even of their opponebts were obliged to allow that the
Ante-Ntcene Fathers were against them, and that Arius appeal-
ed to tradition as in his favour. What, then, is he to do here ? Is
it very unreasonable for him to doubt whether anything brought
to him lender the name of patristical tradition can be considered
an unwritten word of God ? Is it very unreasonable for bjm to
go to what both sides consider the word of God, and to think thai
such passages as declare that '^ the Word was Gpd,*' (John I }.)
thaf Christ is over all, God blessed for ever," (Itom. ix. 5^ that
say of him, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," (Heb. i.
8,) and that call him ^< Alph^ and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, which is and which was and which is to come, the Al-
migb^,'* (Rev. I 8,) go as near to settle the question as all which
both rides have ever ofiered him? Is it very unreasonable for
the poor illiterate man to say, I can understand this, and I know
it to be Grod's word, and am content ; but nine^tenths of the ar-
guments which patristical tradition and controverrialists have sup-
plied n^ with, are no doubt very learned and forcible, but quite
beyond my reach, for I know nothing of Greek, or the princi-
pies of criticism, or anything 6f the kind, but still I do think that
nothing can be plainer than these texts, and therefore I must let

pp*

460 SCRtFTURB THB 80LB IMYAtLtRIB

those who will, and can, wrangle on, while I rest bere« At any
rate, this is my safest course, with whatever difficulties it may
be beset ; for though you aeree in hardly anything else, you aU
tell me that the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore, if I
humbly endeavour to follow that, I am surely in the safest path.;
and wnen you learned men have settled your difference, I shall
be hapOT to hear from you again.

But tf our opponents say, all this may be very true, but then
this poor man is bound to follow " the Church,'* I beg to ask upon
whom he is to depend to point out ^^the Church" to him.
Christians are as much at variance about this (as far as it can be
a guide) as i^bout any thing else ; and if it be added, that the
marks of the true Church are such as to carry conviction to the
mind of any one who can reason properly on such a matter, then
you have turned your poor illiterate man into one able to judge
where even able and learned men disagree, and therefore surely
able to understand the plain statements of Scripture respecting
the fundamentals of the faith. And if the Catholic church b so
easily discerned, will our opponents have the goodness to point it
out with a little more precision than they have yet done, and
then still further t^ll us (the most impprtant point of aU) how the
voice of that Church can be so heard by this illiterate man as to
be to him an infallible gui(l€. Is he to read, or get others to
read to him, all that the Fathers have written, and thus deter-
mine what is the meaning of Scripture t The very notion is ah*
surd. The question, then, is, whether he is to take as his guide
the word of Grod itself in the Scriptures, or the opinion of men
as to the meaning affixed to that word by patristical tradition.
In one way, God speaks to him immediately, and that voice can
never be heard by man without rendering him responsible
for obeying it; in the other, he is left at the mercy of fallible
men.

Our opponents, then, may conjure up as many difficulties as
they please in the way of this poor man's arriving at a correct
knowledge of the faith, and difficulties no doubt there are,
(though, blessed be God, if he be a sincere and humble-minded
inquirer, he has a heavenly guide who will not fail him,) but I
beg to ask, what can be the standard of truth to such a man^
amidst all the diversity of sentiment around him, but his Bible f
If you take away that as his rule of faith, you leave him either
at the mercy of the party among whom he happens to be born,
or to be to^d about without any guide, on a sea of opinions
upon which the wind is blowing from all quarten of the compass
simultaneoudy.^

I Another objection bronght bj Mr. If ewnan, bot wliieli it really eeenn nimo*
eeeniy to notice more prominently than in thie note, ia ectnally deii¥ed Drom th«

SULB AVD JVDaS IH BBUeiON. 451

•The second objection which I would here notice is this, That
heretics, and men advancing erroneous views, have always ap-

gealed to Scripture in proof of their errors, and therefore that
cripture cannot be the sole rule of faith.^

Now, first, this is not true ; for, as we have already seen, many
of the heretics appealed to the interpretation of Scripture given
by tradition ; others appealed to the Scriptures in a corrupt and
mutilated state, adulterated to serve their purposes, (an appeal
which is no evidence acainst the assertion that tht Scriptures are
competent to be the sole rule of faith, and moreover to determine
controversies of faith); others tried to deter men altogether from
the study of the Scriptures ; and the appeal, where made^ was
made to a few isolated passages, not to a connected view of the
whole testimony of Scripture upon the subject' And much the
same may be said of modern heretics.

But suppose it were otherwise, will that prove that Scripture
is not our sole rule ? Because heretics, conscious of the claims
of Scripture upon us, have endeavoured to make it speak their
views, are we to libel the word of God, by accusing it of insufS*
ciency to teach men the truth, and be their rule of mith 7 When
the devil tried to deceive our Saviour by Quoting Scripture, did
our Lord send him to tradition for the truth f Did he not, on that
as on every other occasion, go to the written~word as the rule I

Nay, more, when heretics appeal to Scripture, does it not tend
to show how clearly the common sense or mankind points out
Scripture as the rule of faith, when those who are condemned
by it feel themselves obliged to refer to it, and make it appear, if
possible, in their favour t They indeed, who do not fear to ac-
cuse the Scripture of indistinctness and obscurity, may answer
this in the negative ; but they who have some remaining reve-
rence for God's word will, I think, hesitate to do so. For surely,
if men can thus distort the meaning of God's word, they can do
the same to the writinj^ of the Fathers, if they think it worth
their while ; and this, indeed, is what has been done in some
cases by those who cared to obtain the support of the Fathers.

<< prejodicM" of man, (p. 176,) fh>m Uie " force preponeMiioM hrra in eUtquaU^
fying «• from ■earebing SeripUirs diapaMonatalj for oanahFaa." (p« 180.) 8o
inat Scripuira cannot be tha aole aaUioritati?a rola of iaiih, btcmue man will
read it under the Inflaenca of prejudicea and prepoaaaaaiona I To ttate ancb an
argument ia to demoliah it That imperfect edacation, and the preralance of
prejodicea and prapoaaaasona, render auch teaching aa will inatimet the leaaon of
men, and tend to remo¥e their ptejadioea and prepoaaaaaiona, moat Talaabla, from
whate?er quarter it maj come, ia mOat true, but the argument deri¥ed from them
by Mr. Newman ia utterly untenable.

1 See Mr. Newm. Lect. 7^ and BeUarm. Dt Yetb. Dei, lib. Iv..e. 8.

s See ch. 6. pp. 806 at wti^ aboTO.

463 fcxipnTmi xn ioub ucfalubub

Of aU ai^punentsy then» agaiiMt the view for which we con-
tendy this surely is one of the worst.

Aik] what says our oppooents' witness. Bishop StiHiDgfleety to
it 7 His Romish antagonist had urged, ** that our rule of faith
is cominoD to all the heresies in the world, which pretend Scrip-
ture as well as we ;" to which the bishop replies* ^ This is just
the old sceptical argunient against certainty ; if there be any
such thing as certsdnty, you must assign such a criterion which
is not common to truth and falsehood ; but if you cannot assign
any such mark of truth which may not as well agree to what is
false* then there is no such thing as certainty to be bad. In mat-
ters of this nature the proof niust not lie in generals, but we must
come to particulars, to show the grounds of our certainty, viz.
as to the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ ; and then, if we
cannot show why we believe those points, and reject the opposite
heresies, as Arianism, Sabellianism, Eutycbianism, &c., then we
are to be blamed for want of certainty in the points, but not
before.'**

Thirdly, it is objected that men are taught in Scripture to
look to the pastors of the Church for instruction, and therefore
that Scripture was not intended to be the sole authoritative rule
of faith.

But, I ask. Is the Church to be heard in preference to Grod ?
If not, Scriptikre is our guide in all things there delivered ; and
he who believes that Scripture says one thing and the Church
another, abd follows th6 Church, is following man in preference
to God. Ood has nowhere told us to go to the Church for the
meaning of his own word. In the Scriptures he has spoken to
us plainly, and the great duty of the minister of Christ is to bring
before tnose who may be too ignorant or too careless to read, or
too prejudiced to see, the truths which those Scriptures contain.
** If any man speak,^ says the Apostle, ** let him speak as the
oracles of God."

But the ministerial duty of the pastor interferes not with the
claim of the Holy- Scriptures to be the alone supreme and divine
rule of faith. We may give their full value to the instructions
of the pastors of the Oiurch, without supposing them to be any
part of the rule of faith.

There are some observations on this matter in a treatise pub-
lished by' Dr. Oagett (the friend of Archbiriiop Sharp,) and
another in the ereat Popish controversy in the time of James II.,
aojudieieos and pertinent to our present subject, that I shall
here present the reader with an extract from them.

> Diicoiint fonssrning tbt n»$mn and groandi of the oeitaia(gr of fiidth, 168a,
p. 60.

RT7LS AND JUDGE IN BBUOION. 458

•

** Although it be not only every man^s right but duty also to
inquire into the truth, and it be impossible but that he must
judge for himself at last, yet this does by no means void the
authority of spiritual guides and governors to lead the people
committed to their charge into the knowledge of the truth. For
instance^ as in a matter of so great concern as the true interpre-
tation of Scripture, I am bound to use my own judgment as well
as I can, so for the same reason I am bound to use all the helps
I can procure, but especially to hearken to the governors of that
Church whereof I am a member, which I may certainly do with-
out being obliged to follow them, right or wrong, unless a man
must of necessity put out his own eyes because he hopes that he
has a good guide. That all confusion must needs follow the
liberty of private inquiry and judgment, is a thing that no decla-
mations will persuade me to believcy when Iknow the contrary
by my own experience. I was baptized and educated m, this
dhurch of England to the profession of Christianity; the Church
laid before me, sis it does before all, her doctrine and worship,
and has given me means and liberty to examine all by the
Scriptures^ and by common principles of religion. I have dcme
this as well as I can, and am mightily confirmed in that faith
and profession which t took up first upon her authoriity. Now I
will not presume to say that the Church is obliged to me for
taking this pains, but I must confess that I am not a little obliged
to the Church for two things ; both for instructii^ nite hi the sin-
cere truth of religion, and for allowing me the liberty and the
means to satisfy myself that she has done so ; for whether she
had taught me a doctrine that wou)d bear examination, it had
been impossible for me to know if I had not examined it. And
I am so sure that I am not the less but the more fast in the com-
munion of this Church, and in submission to her authority, for
having used this liberty, that a man may haraneue all day ka^
about the mischiefs of this Hberty, and when he has done, f shaU
need to do no more but to oppose my own experience to his
flourishes ; and it shall remain true, that a Church which teaches
the truth sincerely, can do herself no greater right than tp aflRur^
all manner of means and opportunities to her members to ex-
amine what she teaches. This, indeed, as well as other good
things, may be abused, but they that do abuse it shall have the
wor^ on it, but the Church is clear of all blame. And what our
Lord said of Wisdom, will be true of the Church, that she shall
be justified of her children. I do not deny that this liberty is
very much for the disadvantage of a Church in one case, L e. if
dhe teaches errors instead of truths, and for doctrines the com-
mandments of meta ; for when this comes once to be fully dis-
covered, the (Kscovery makes such a wound in her as cannot be

bealed wttbont a refomntioa, but otberwne she ihall UoRr of it

till she dies. And therefore this Ubertj/ qf private Juagment

and itujuiring into the truth by the Scriptures, lays a migh^

:heB to be bonestt I mean upon their

ly unce whether they give this lib-

en more or leas; not. all the terrors

Joed to force, can totally suppress it.

[ can neither see that tfie free use of

ause schisms, nor that the setting up of

eeds prevent (hem. But I am abuo-

I has left us no infallible judge to de-

le has left us the Holy Scriptures to

I make not the least doubt that God,

1 reasons, has given us these means of

coming to the knowledge of the truth, and not the other. I

idainly discern this to be one, that the means of instroction and

the evidence of truth nhicb God has efibrded ns, might be «

toucbstooe to distinguish between the sincere and the teachable,

between the good apd the honest heart on the one side, and the

intiocere and disbonest on the other. And sure I am that God

haa appointed a day of judgroeat, in which he will proceed ac-

cordiK to that diflerence, and distmguish between these two, by

rewaroJDg tba one and punishing the other .... The Holy

Scriptures . ... are /A« onfy rule, and will at last prove thie

only meauMfC ending those coDtrovernea that disturb the peace

oftheUhurch."'

We shall now proceed to show, in like manner, that Holy
Scripture is the sole infallible Judge of controversies respectii^
the truths of revelatton.

And here we shall pursue the same cour^ as befiire in con-
ndering.
I. Toe true meaoing and extent of what is here asserted.
IL The ai^umeuts and objections wluch may be advanced re-
electing it,

I. As to tbe true meanii^ and extent of the assertion that
Hdj Scripture is the sole infallible Judge of controversies re-
qtecting the truths of revelation.

By this poaitioa, then, we mean that it is in Holy Scripture
<M)ly that we can meet with any infallible determinations respect*
ing the points in dispute. When controversies arise. Scripture onlv
Can terminate them ; and if Scripture does not terminate them, it
is either because they concern things which are not there delivered,
uid which, therefore, do not come to us with the authority ta

SULB AlfB JUDGB IK RBLIOIOlf. 455

divine revelation, or because Scripture is mbinterpreted ; and in
either case there is no further ir\fallible authority on earth to ap*
peal to for judgment.

When, however, we call Scripture a judge j we of course
mean so far as any written document of the kind can be a judge ;
and this may be a sufficient answer to all the objections that the
Romanists are accustomed to allege on this point ; who, reckoning
up all things that a living judge can do, and showing that some
or those things Scripture cannot do, draw the conclusion that
therefore Scnpture cannot perform the office of a judge of con-
troversies. But it does not follow that, because a written taw
cannot perform all that a living judge can do, that therefore sucb
a law cannot be called, and be to a certain extent, a judge, and,
if there be no other, the 9oie judge.

It is quite true that the pastors of evef'y Church have a so]b>
ordinate and ministerial authority to judge even in controversies
of faith ; but they do so, not as mfallible teachers, but as falK-
ble witnesses to wh^t they deem to be the truth. Every Oiurch
is justified, and more than justified, in laying down a confession of
faith which may separate her from unortiiodox communions, and
keep her own clear of vital error. But if she knows her duty,
she does not do it in the presumptuous spirit of one who thai-
leoges infallibility, either, trom her own character, or as a witness
of " tradition.**

I see no reason, therefore, why we should not with the Fathers
(as r shall hereafter show) give this appellation to Scripture;
though, if it be made a question of words, we should be quite
willing to substitute ** standard of jiiidgmeut,'* or any similar
phrase that might be thought more appropriate to a written
document ; or to say with Qhillingworth, that it is *^ the ' rule to
judge controversies by; only protesting against anything else
being lifted into the chair thus vacated.

We are here speakine, of course, of what exists upon earth ;
for otherwise, and speaking generally, Christ alone, as he is the
Head of the Church, so is lie the Supreme Judge of controver-
sies in it : and indeed it is on this ground that ^e give to Scrip-
ture, as alone infallibly conveying to us his word, the place of
supreme judge on earth ; while we allow to the ministers of his
Church the privilege of being subordinate and ministerial judges.

Let us consider,

II. The arguments and objections which may be advanced
respecting this truth.

(1.) From Scripture.

The foundation upon which this truth rests is, as we have seen,
briefly this; That as God is the only infallible Judge of contrch
versies in reKgk>D, and as bis voice can be recognized with cer*

:ripturea, those Scriptures are cotue-
ludge df coDtrovenies ou earth,
how, theo, is, that the; are referred
hat character, or as beii^of anature

;rred to even in the Old Testament ;
nto you, seek unto tbem that have
Dot a people seek unto their God V
mto their God, to know his will in the
i law and to the testimony" for direc-
is the rule by. which all other inform-
"if they speak not according to this
10 light iii them." .(Is. xx. 19, 20.)
requentiy appeals to them as perform-
ing the office of a judge. " He that believeth not," he says, " ts
, condemned already, becanae be hath not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God." (John iii. 18.) How has God
thus already condemned suchi By the sentence recorded in his
Scriptures; as the Apostle says, " The Scripture hath concluded
all under uo, that tne promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be
eiven to them that believe." (Gal. iii. 32.) The Scripture is so
Formed as to net as a judge upon earth in such a case, and pub-
lish God's sentence.

Again, be sends the Sadducees to the Scripture as determining
the doctrine of the resurrection. " As toucbii^ the dead, that
they .rise, have ye not read in the book of Mooes, how in the bush
God spake unto bim, saying, I am tbe God of Abraham, and the
Godof Isaac, and tbe God of Jacob? He is not the God of the
dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."
(Mark xiL 26, 27.) And in like manner be sends the Jews to tbe
Scripture for judgment respecting himself, and his claims upon
their belief. " Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye
have eternal life, and they are tbey that testify of me." John
V. 39.) And he tells them that the judgment given by the wri-
tings of Moses so clearly condemned them for their unbelief, that
they might be said to accuse them before tbe Father. " Do not
think that I will accuse you to the Father ; there is one that ac-
cuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. Foj had ye believed
Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if
ye believe not his toritinga, how shall ye believe my words ?"
(John V. 45—7.) The judgment given in the toritings of Moses,
then, was sufficiently clear infavour of our Lord, in the judgment
of God, to make tbe Jews guilty, if they did not so understand
then; and.recdve bim, of whom tbey testified. There is no im-
posubiti^, then, that Scripture may be variously interpreted bv
tDOi, and yet give id tbe sight of God an amply sufficient and

MVLM AKD JVDOB HI KSUOIOir. 457

clear judgment, to bring those in guilty before him who do not
interpret it aright And the reason is plain ; because, in all im*
portant points, men are prevented only by their own prejudices,
corruption, or carelessness, from rightly understanding it

On another occasion he speaks, if possible, still more clearly of
his own word, that word which is recorded in the Gospels, as
bearing that character. ** He that rejecteth me, and receiveth
not my words, hath one that judgtih him : the word that I
have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last, day." (John
xii. 48.) That word we possess in the Scriptures.

Shall we say, then, that the Scriptures containing that word
are insufficient, and ill calculated to act as a judge now to us on
earth, when we are told expressly that that word will be our
judge at the future day of account t Is it not equally calculated
to act as a judge now to us on earth, as it will be at the future
day of account at the bar of Christ t And if hj that word we
are to be then judged, then the statements of that word are clear
and determinate, and sufficient of themselves to determine all
controversies on the essentials of the gospel at least ; and it will
be our wisdom to use it now for the same purpose, and '/judge
ourselves" by it ; making that our rule of judgment here, by which-
we are to {>e judged hereafter. And if this is done with simpli-
city and sincerity, and prayer to God for his blessing, we know,
from the promises of a faithful Grod, that such an inquirer shall
not err fundamentally.

To these passages we might add those which speak of the effi-
cacy and power of God's word in enlightening and influencing the
mind, all tending to show the suitabkness of Scripture to act in
this character.

Thus the Apostle Paul speaks of the word of God as <' efiectu-
ally working in those that belleVe," (1 Thess. iL 13,) and as
<^ quick and powerful and sharper than any twQ-edged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunde^ of soul and spirit, and of
the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and in-
tents of the heart" (Heb. iv. 12.)

I proceed to notice,

(2.) The argumente and objections which may be derived from
general considerations. '

First, then, I ar^ue thus :^— God alone can infallibly determine
controversies in religion, but men in generfil have no sufficient
certainty of hearing his voice anywhere but in the Scriptures ;
and therefore, the sole infallible judge of such controversies in
the present state is Scripture. Taking into consideration only
the system of the Tractators, it lindeniably follows, that if <' tra-
dition" is not the word of God, and that God's word alone is in-
fallible, (which, I suppose, will not be disputed) whatever cavil

Y0L» I* <^<^

4ft8 BCBIFTUBS THK 8€tLB IMFALUBUI

may be urged against Scripture as unable to pronouoce judg-
ment 80 as to end controversy, it alone can act the pari of an in-
fallible judge in such matters. For all that we have to consider
in finding such a judge is, first, where the supreme authority for,
pronouncing a decision rests, and then, how we are to obtain that
decision ; and if we are forced to allow that such authority is in
God alone, and that we have no assurance of hearing his voice
anywhere but in the Scriptures, it necessarily follows that Scrip-
ture only can give any infallible determination respecting the
point in dispute. If there is no decision on the matter recorded
there, there is no certainly-divine testimony concerning it, and if
the matter is not plainly delivered there, it is not plainly revealed
to us, and no man can be required to believe more than is there
•aid respecting it.

Man may be the medium through whom a knowledge of the
determinations of Scripture noay be conveyed, t. e, he may deliver
them to me from Scripture, and point out to me those passages
upon which his views chiefly rest, and I may be brought to the
belief of a doctrine upon that testimony ; but the proof of the doc-
trine rests entirely upon the authority of Scripture, and not in
the testimony of the bearer that such and such is the meaning of
Scripture, u'om whatever source that interpretation may be
derived.

Secondly, — That Scripture is the sole authoritative judge in
controversies of faith that respect fundamental points, follows from
the fact that there is no other judge whose orthodoxy can be as^
sumed without proof, and consequently without our ascertaining,
in the first instance/that for which we want a judge.

The catholic consent of the primitive church to which our op-
ponents send us, is, as we have shown, a mere dream of the ionagi-
nation. The faith of the catholic Church cannot be so adequate-
ly witnessed to us a« to make any producible representation of it
an infallible guide. Freedom from fundamental error could only
be assumed of the catholic consent of the Church, either as the
whole body of professing Christians, or as the body of true believ-
ers— '* the blessed company of all faithful people." Taking the
word "Church" in either of these 9ense8, we may justly say, that
the catholic consent of the Church would be (if we could ascertain
it) an mfallible guide*. But in neither of these senses is it attain-
able.

And hence, it is absurd to talk of the Church, of any age, or
any number of ages, being an Infallible Ruide to the truth, even
as a witness, because, taking the word Church in that sense in
which alone infallibility could be predicated of it, its witness is
unattainable, and 90 cannot be a guide at a// to ils.

May, even in the behest pobti^ not only if catbcdic content

WOtM AHD JUDOS TV BILIOION. 499

iDcapat)le of proof, but the partial cofisent adduced is met hj
counter-statements^ pleading an opposing witness of equal au-
thonty.

For instance, take the case of Arian, Nestorian, or Pelagian
errors. Ariu?, as we have seen, appealed to antiquity as in his fa-*
your, and not only were there several dissentients to the decision
come to at Nice, but not long after, at another Council, composed
of nearly twice as n>any bishops, the opposite doctrine was
maintained. Can we appeal, then^ to the decision of the
Nicene Council as infallible, as binding the conscience to be-
lief, as authoritative ? Augustine knew better than to do so.
When disputing with Maximinus the Arian, what is his language 1
"But now,^^ he says, [i. e. while arguing this question] ** neither
ought I to bring forward the Nicene Council^ nor you
that of Ariminum^ as if we could thus settle the question.
Neither may I be held by the authority of the one^ nor you
by the authority of the other, ffe must argue the matter
point with point, cause with cause, reason with reason^ by
AUTHORITIES OF ScRiPTURB, witncsscs not belonging to any
party, but common to ioth**^ Was not this, then, to make
Scripture the Judge of the controversy ?

Now this decision of the Council of Nice is, perhaps, the best
entitled of any thing that has come down to us from the primi-
tive Church to be considered as speaking the language of the
catholic Church. If» then, this must be given up, as not in itself
binding the conscience to belief, is there anything else that can
be said to do so ?

The case is precisely similar as it respects the Nestorian and
Pelagian errors. Nestorius appealed to antiquity, and to this
day bis party form a large episcopal communion, claiming descent
from the Apostles as much as any other.* With respect to Pela-
gian errors, we have already seen tjiat patristical testinK>ny was
appealed to as in their favour, and that the appeal was not des-
titute of foundation, to sav the least.

We must take heed not to be deceived by names and words,
nor to take it for granted that this or. that body forms " the
Church,^' from our having been accustomed to attach that title
to it. The Apostolic admonition to every man is, " Prove all
things, hold fast that which is good." It is easy to claim a high-
sounding name, and then, on the strength of it, condemn others.
But we must recollect that the name ''Church" has been

y

J Bed nunc nee ago Nicstiaiii nee tu debet Ariminense ta&quam prnjadieatunit
proferre concilium. Nee ego hajas aactoritate nee ta illi^a defineria ; Scriptora-
ram aactorhatibua, nnn qaoramqoie propriis ted utrUque eommunibua teatibua,
rea cam re» eaoaaa cum caaaea, ratio dumrariona coneerteU Aag. contra Max!-
minam Ariaa.'Ub. ii. c. 14. § 8. Ed. Benad. torn; Yiii. col. 704.

400 KurTuxa mx moji nrrAUiMJi

claimed bj all partiec, atid all have profened to be attached to

and defenders of the doctrinesof the Church of Christ, and almost

all partiefl have more or len claimed patrutical tradition b9 in

their favour. When, thea, we attach the nameChurch to thisor

that body, if we mean it to apply to one deserving of being fot-

lowed as a guide, we must have some sufficient reason to give in

me, and tf hat sufficient reason

)e orthodoxy in the fundamen-

bat is not overlaid by the aiU

' age, as the testimony of the
Iain number of iodividualB or
less may, in some cases, be en-
oubtless it is in the case of the
can be authoritative over the
h witnesses must be proved be-
ly as authoritative, and then,
stalled.

cannot speak of the Univer-
i this or that T nor that this is
an argument in favour or what is so supported ? By no means,
taking the words in a general sense. But let us understand what
meaning must be a£6xed to the words, and how far the argnmetit
is tenable. When- we speak thus, we speak of that which we
hold lo be the (Jnivcrsal Church, and morf-ovtir, of der.Uions which
can only, in a general and papular sense, be reckoned decisions
of the Universal Church, for the proof of their being such is
wholly lacking.

And in matters of discipline and non-essential points of faith,
much is to be allowed to the authority, not merely of the Uiii<
versal Church as far as it can be ascertained, but of any pure
portion of il. The God of peace and order requires this of us.
We are not to divide and throw into confusion a Scriptural
Church for the indulgence of our own humours in such points.
But in fundamental points the case is different. When arguing
with an Arian, or abstractedly on the subject of Arian, or other
fundamental errors, it is a mere deception to talk of the Univer-
sal Church being of a contrary mind. We must decide these
points before we can know who constitute the Universal Church,
that is, iht orthodox Universal Church, which alone could he a
guide.

Before we can admit a claim made for any individuals or anj
body of men, to he a summary Judge of controverues of failb,
we must ascertain that they are orthodox in the faith, and there-
fore ascertain from an ioaependent source, what the orthodox
fiuth is; after which we need not their decisoo.

SV&S A.VD JUOGK IN shuqioh. 461

And still further, if we are looking for a safe guide, we must
also ascertain that the fundn mentals am not overlaid, as in tbc
Church of Rome, v/ith fundamental error, endangering the sal-
vation of all wlio are in her communion ; for, as Bishop Saoder-
Eon says, " The doctrinal errors of the Church of Rome do not
directly and immediately overthrow the fouodatioD of laith, as
the heresy of the Arian Churches did, b
RBGESSARV cossEQUBNCE thev do, as in the
transubstantiation," &c.' And bo Archbis
may hold the fundamental point literally, e
there, be without control, and yet err g
nay damnably, in the exposition of it
CHURCH or KoHs's c*aK."' And therefore
peril, great pifril of damnable, both aehism
sin, by living and dying in the Roman faith
superstition!;, as at this day it is, and their i
do, indeed, for my part, leaving other mi
judgment, acknowledge a possibility of sa
Church; but so as that which I grant to R'
are Romanists, but as they are Christians, I
the Creed, and hold the foundation, Christ himself, not as they asso-
ciate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the grOsg supersti-
tions of the Romish Church." " All Protestants unanimously
agree in this, Ikat there is great peril qf damnation for any
man to live and die in the Roman persuasion ; and you ?re
notable to produce any one Protestant that ever said the con-
trary. And therefore, that is a most notorious slander, where
you say, that they which affirm this peril of damnation are con-
tradicted by their own more learned brethren."* Such is the
church of which our opponents say, " fVe are at peace with
Some,"* and call this sentiment •3nglicanism.

Where, then, I ask, amidst all this diversity of sentiment, this
clashing of Fathers and Councils and rival " Churches," where
is there any secure resting-place for the sole of the foot but in the
ark of God's written word, which, amidst the angry waves of
controversy, floats calm and uninjured above all, bearing over
them, in perfect safety, all those who have, in reliance upon
the divine promises, humbly taken refuge in it, and as the
waters of confusion swell around it, is only exalted by them to a
higher elevation, and more distinctly pointed out as the only
place of safety and peace.

Thirdly, — The claims of Scripture to be the sole infallibly
Judge of controversies of faith, are strongly supported by ^

I Di*c. ooowrniag Um Cb.vch, ISBS, p. IT.

' Aiui*ar to Firiiw, V VI, No. B.

' lb. 4 SO, No, S. < Mr. Newnu p. US.

462 SCRimtRB THE 80LK INFALLXttB

fact, allowed by all, that the words of Scripture only are in-
spired.

Thii concession (which cannot be withheld) is most important.
For in the delivery of doctrines, especially those of a more mys-
terious nature, accuracy in the expressions used is essential to
the conveying accurate ideas to the mind of the reader. And
when any one who has himself only a certain portion of light
with respect to them, attempts to convey a notion of them to
others, even though he may have been correctly instructed in
them, he is continually liable to be using expressions open to mis-
construction and capable of an unorthodox sense. It is more
than probable that he may have in his eye some error opposed
to the truth which he is delivering, and to avoid the error he
uses language open to error of an opposite kind. This is a de-
fect which we continually meet with in the Fathers, and in the
points which were the chief objects of dispute in the early
Church, viz., those connected with the person of Christ. The
consequence is, that it is impossible to prove their consent in
them, even where they may have consented. In the doctrines
of religion, therefore, we want the expressions dictated by the
Divine mind, becaqse in them only we have a representation of
those doctrines which we can be sure is free from error, and
which n^eds only a strictly fair interpretation to lead us to a
knowledge of the truth. Hence St Paul reminds us, that when
^ the Apostles delivered the mysteries of God, they spoke " not in
the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy
Ghost teacheth." (1 Cor. ii. 13.) These expressions we can find
in Scripture only. It is not pretended that patristical tradition
can furnish us with the expressions of the oral teaching of the
Apostles. And hence Scripture has peculiar claims on this ground
to be considered the final and sole infallible Judge of controver-
sies of faith.

But our opponents have various objections to urge on this
head.

First, — ^The Scripture cannot be the sole judge of controver-
sies, because it does not carry with it its own interpretation ;
which, in other words, is saying that, even in the fundamental
points of faith, it is not intelligible.

'* The Bible," says Mr. Newman, '< is not so written as to force
its nneaning upon the reader;" and therefore the notion of '<tbe
Bible without note or comment being the sole authoritative judge
in controversies of faith, is a self-destructive principle." (Lectpp.
84, 5.) ^* They must either give up their maxim about the Bible
and the Bible only, or they must give up the Nicene formulary.
The Bible does not carry witji it its own interpretation." (lb. p.
292.) ^ That Scripture/' says Bellarmine, ** is not the judge, is

WVta AVD JVDGB IK KBueiax. 4M

evident; because it admits difierent meanings, and oannot tell us
which is the right one." (Bellarm. De V* D. iil c. 9.)

Now here Mr. Newman has almost saved me the trouble of
making any reply, for he has supplied something very like one
himself; for, as he iustly remarks elsewhere, — ^^ It surely may be
maintained, not only that the Scriptures have but one direct and
unchangeable sense, but that it is such as in all greater matters
to make a forcible appeal to the mind, when fairly put before
it, and to impress it with a convictian of its being the true
one" (p. 165.) Truly so; and I think it might be considered a
sufficient answer to the objection ; for though there is the saving
clause " when fairly put before the mind," yet surely this " forci-
ble appeal" and *< impression convening conviction," can only be
supposed in the case of Scripture distinctly and clearly pointing
out its own sense; for if I say that such a book teaches this or
that doctrine, and when the book is perused its teaching is so in
favour of that doctrine, as to make a *< forcible appeal to the
mind" of men, '* and impress it with a conviction" of its being
there taught, that doctnne must be clearlv pointed out there;
and consequently, in the case of any man oi sufficient education
to know the meaning of its words, there can be do need of any
authoritative interpreter, or of my insisting upon being heard
first, lest he should attach a different meaning to them.

But further ; upon what is this objection grounded ? It stands
upon the tacit supposition that the hindamental doctrines of the
faith are so doubtfully stated in Scripture, that men may tmth
reason attach different meanings to the statements there made
respecting them. Now, this, we maintain, is utterly at variance
with the objects which the Evangelists had in view in penning
the gospels, and therefore contradicted by the fact of their being
the subjects of divine inspiration for the purpose of enabling them
to communicate the faith clearly and faithfully to mankind. The
diversity of sentiment prevailing anrK)ng men on points of faith,
as it respects the fundamentals, arises, we contend, not from the
language of Scripture being dubious, — for in all such points (as
the Fathers witness) it is clear and plain — but from the precon-
ceived notions and prejudices of men, who come not to the Scrip-
tures with humility abd simplicity of mind, seeking the truth in
sincerity. These truths are stated in Scripture, so as to convince
all who are willing to receive them ; and such only are in a con-
dition to receive them, from whatever quarter they may be pro-
posed to them. They are placed before men, as our Lord's
teaching and miracles were before the Jews. There is sufficient
evidence for the conviction of all who are open to the receptioD
of the truth. The word of God makes a ** forcible appeal*^ to
the conscience in behalf of the truth. And this is all the forct

4U aOUPTUHl TBS lOLI IltrALLIBU

which comes from a Divine wurce. And the truth having thus
been clearly placed before men, the; are responsible (o God for
their conduct with respect to it. Nor does their rejection of it,
and mirinterpretation of the Scriptures to meet their own views,
atij more prove that the Scriptures are insufficient to conrej the
truth to the minds of impartial men, than the rejection of our
Liord by the Jews, and the di0erent opinions entertained respect-
ing bim, prove that he gave insufficient evidence of the truth of
bis divine mission.

And when Mr. Newman says (hat " we must give up our
maxim about the Bible and the Bible only, or we must give up
the Nicene formulary," be, in fact, says that the Bible does not
speak the language of the Nicene formulary so es to give any
proof of its truth; which leaves to that formulary nothing but
an uncertain tradition to rest upon, and thereby overthrows (he
only sure foundation upOn which the orthodox faith ia founded.

And still further, tbey who will persist in p<

to speak their own views, will as readily mal

worth their white to d

\ already observed, divers

ponetits' witness. Bishop S
grant," be says, " that (hi

contained in Scripture, o

r necessary to salvation, t

i; and Bellarmine yield!,

contained in Scripture, and were the things
which the Apostles constantly preached to all people ;' who can-
not be denied to have been capable of understanding these things,
when they heard them preached; and how eould they lose the
capacity of understanding them, when they were written ?
And if they might still understand them, then the Scripture bath
no such mysterious knots ; but all points necessary to salvation
may be understood by the people. So that as to these points
qf greatest importance, the Scripture must be left aa a lega^
cy to all Christians, and not only to the guides of the
Church. But J. S. craves leave to explain himself; and it is
great pity to deny it him. ' Mistake me not,' saitb he, ' I do not
mean Scripture's leiter is not clear in such passages as concern
morality .... but in dogmatical points or tenets which are
spiritual and oftentimes profound mysteries, asa Trinity, Christ's
Godhead, the real presence of bis body in the sacrament, and such
like, and in such at these, our rule is not intelligible enough to
keep the followers of it from erring.' [Precisely the argument
of our opponents-] 1 answer, Either the Apostles preached these
points to aH persons as necessary to their salvation, or they did
not. l( not, bowcome they to be necessary to be believed now ?

BUUB AIIDJVDGS III BUJOION. 460

If they did, then the people were capable of understaikling
them when they heard them ; and therefore may as well un^
derstand them when they read them. [Manifestly taking
it for granted that they are as fully and clearly delivered in
the Scriptures, as in the oral preaching of the Apostles.] I
do not mean the manner as to the Trinity and Incarnation,
(as to Transubstantiation, I know nothing in Scripture about it,
either as to thing or manner,) but the revelation of such a doc-
trine. So that if these points be owned to be necessary to salva-
tion, they must be so plain, that men tnay understand their duty
to believe them. For that is the bound I keep myself within,
that all things necessary to salvation are so plain, that we may
be certain^ of our duty to believe them ; but if not, we may err
without prejudice to our salvation."^

Secondly, it is objected that Scripture cannot be the sole au-
thoritative Judge of controversies, because in all the principal
controversies of faith, the meaning of Scripture is the great point
in controversy, and both sides claim Scripture as in their favour;
and thus no controversy can be decided.

" The Bible," says Mr. Newman, " is not so written as to fierce
its meaning upon the reader ; no two Protestant sects can agree
together whose interpretation of the Bible is to be received.**
- . - . , ^^ St'coTjiinshC^ "the notion of thp,R5hlp, ti'ithmtt nqtf-
or comment, being the sole authoritative judge in controversies
of faiths is a self-destructive principle.*' (pp. 34, 5.) And so
among Bellarmine's reasons why Scripture cannot be the judge,
is this, that " the question is concerning the interpretation of
Scripture, and it cannot interpret itself." (De Verb. Dei. lib. iii.
c. 9.)

But this objection proves nothing more than that there are
persons who misinterpret Scripture. It is no proof that it is not
a very sufficient judge of such controversies ; and still less any
proof that it is not the sole infallible judge that God has given
us. Nay, when we consider how many feelings there are in the
natural mind, tendine to alienate it from the love of the truth as
revealed in the gospel, and how many impediments there are to
a reception of it, can it be a matter of surprise to us that a re-
velation, the true meaning of which has so much opposition to
contend with, should be variously interpreted ? its mysteries ex-
plained away, and its truths lowered to the standard of men's
corrupt imagination T And is it to be argued, that because of
this, that is^ because men cannot be brought to see and confess
the truths there revealed, the revelation is insufficient to show
men the truth ? The question is not whether men interpret the

1 DiK. eoneeniiag natott and gfoonds of etrUlntj of faith, pp. 81— .88.

466 wnttrnnti tbs mu nrrAUns-x

Bible rnriousljr, but whether, that being the case, the Tanlt ia
not in man, and not in the Bible being Tairly open to different i[>-
terprelaClons in Ihe essentials of the faith.

Mark the conaeauence of such renroning as our opponents here
adopt. It follows from it, (hat on none of all the various points
that heretics have ever controverted, is Scripture clear enough
to decide the dispute. For instance. Scripture tells us that " the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us ;" from which impar-
tial men would, we suppose, be ready to think that the Scrip>
ture plainly declared thereby, at least as much as this, (hat
Christ appeared tn human nature. But no, we must not draw
any such conclusion ; for the Valentinians and others did not re-
ceive this truth, and gave another interpretation to such Scrip-
tures ; and therefore we must not appeal to Scripture as deter-
mining this point. And lo we might run through almost every
truth m the Christian system ; and because it has been denied
by some who have professed to receive the Scriptures, say that
the Scriptures do not dislinclly determine the matter.

Thus again, for inatance. Scripture says that " The Word Was
God," &.C. The Catholics, ihcrefore, conclude from this passage,
that Oirist must be, in some sense at least, God. But the So-
ciniani explain such texts so as to comport with a denial of the

- ^^liiiiikit^ «f ^hu O^m ill mij ueiie«w_ Man-rir, -** j' oar opp<ropptg, "we

can draw no certain conclusions from such texts. That is, if a
man chooses to assert that two and two make five, we mutt ob-
tain some infaltible matbemnlician to decide between us, before
it can be determined satisfactorily that two and two make four.
And mark the triumphant reply of the Socinian; He will say,
I, that the Scriptures may not unreasonably or
>nsidefed to have the meaning which I have at-
n. I am content, therefore ; far 1 leave tradition
te it, and abide by what I have good reason to he-
word of God. Give me the Bible, and I will will-
tradition.

, as we have sd often had occasion to observe, if

on, so do others. The Arians, the Nestorians were

ipeal to tradition; and some of the orthodox have

heir appeal was not without reason.

oealenian, Arian, Pelagian, Nestorian, and Euty-

chian controversies," says Bishop Stillingfleet, "neither of the

parties disowned Scripture or tradition; and those who were

justly condemned, pretended still to adhere to both. And ifsuch

fiames could not be prevented bo much nearer the Apostles' limes

by the help of tradition, wbat reason can there be to expect if

so long after?'"

■ Stillia|lwt'iDiNMiMonii>tBi«aiid|ToiiDdtoftliee«Tt^M;ofIti(h,p.ltl.

Kvu A.tm nBOM in imu«ioi(. 48T

Mr. NewmiiD himself allows that the judgment of the Fatheri
may be most easily evaded or perverted, if there be the inclina-
tion to do so ; being Torced thereto by the use made of the Fathers
by the Romaoists. " Romanists," he says, " are obliged by their
professions to appeal to antiquity, and they therefore do so. But
enoi^h has been said already to suggest, Uiat where men are in-
disptned towards such an appeal, where they determiae to be
captious, and take exceptions, and act ttie disputant and sophist
rather than the earnest inquirer, it admits qf easy evasion,
and may be made to conclude any thing ornotAing." (Lecp,
68.) In other words, where men are sd inclined, the Fathers
may be alleged in support of opposite views as well as the Scrip-
tures. How is it, then, that they are able to end controversies
any more than the Scriptures ? The Nicene Creed itself has re-
ceived an unorthodox interpretation.' The fact is, that to at-
tempt to biod heresy by words, is as useless as to try to bind it
with chains.

The Romanists, seeing all this, urge the necessity of some in-
fallible judge being ever present with the Church to decide what
Scripture and " tradition" do really deliver ; and upon the princi-
ple of our opponents, thai nothing is clear, nor can be a rale of
feith or judge of controversies, about the meaning of which men
disagree, there ii no doubt wanting some court of appeal of that
kind. And our opponents, though they would hardly admit that
they have embraced this doctrine, yet often practically come
very near it. I say often, because their language, andespeci-
ally that of Mr. Newman, is so contradictoi
opposite. forms, as to be perfectly Proteai
necessity of a direct assertion of the infail
Church in delivering tradition, they ingeni
the difficulty by declaring that " tradition" :
indisputable, "a fact obvious (o the intell
when the only fact certain is, that people
about it.

Most justly, however, has an able Ror
quoted in a former page,' observed, when d
that "some controversies qf religion mt
Holy Scripture alone," (instiincing, among others, that *' against
the SociniaDs, that Christ had a being ttefore he was conceived of
the Blessed Virgin.") — " If controversies were not decided but
only when they are ended, few would be decided by the Scrip-
ture alone. For it seldom happens that clamours and debates

■ Dr. Htwudln*. 8m pp. M, 8, ihon.

46t mmmvmm tarn wosm nrrAimui

are wknceA hj bdw coodeniDed. Much ]em can this be ex-
pected rrom the word of Crod alone. For whibt men have their
paasioiM about tbem» they will either pronounce the Scripture
itself apocryphal, or put it upon the rack that it may not bring
them in guilty. •S aispute is decided when the case is fairly
tmd peremtorily judged by due authority. But it ends not
commonly till the disputants please. And it seldom or never
comes to this till those that are in the wrong be either divested
qf their passions or directbd bt fear.'' [Which is true enough^
and so the Romanists take the latter course for ending contro-
versies.] '<The Socinians, (if sincere,) without seeing

their error, give a forced interpretation to all the texts of Scrip*
ture which prove the immortality of human souls, and that the
Word had a being before it was made flesh. But in rigour, a
controversy is ihtu decided when nothing but a strong prejudice
can hinder a man from seeing that it is really determined. For
a trifling reply is no reply at alL^ To which he adds, —
*^ Hence Dr. Stillingfleet's exceptions against all Scripture proofs,
for the unerring authority of the Catholic Church in necessaries,
are no demonstration that this point is not decided by the Scrip-
ture,"' •

The last paragraph will, perhaps, explain how it happened
that he came to make remarks so adapted for the confutation of
one of the favourite arguments of his own party ; but they are
perfectly just, and doubly forcible from the mouth of a Romanist

And we find here a very sufficient reply to the whole of R.
H.'s elaborate ironical " rlea of the Socinian," in his '^ Guide
in Controversies ;*' for the whole of it amounts to this, that upon
the Protestant principles the Socinian will always have something
to say for himself; he will aver that he has read the Scriptures,
and they appear to him to favour his view, <&c. du:., and that the
Romish mode of settling the dispute will alone silence him. I
answer. What then T Our object is not to silence but to convince;
and does it show that the controversy is not decided, because the
Socinian declares that he is not convinced ? And I notice this
the rather, because our opponents often use the same argument.

That the Scripture, therefore, cannot be expected to end con-
troversies, that is, to put a stop to them, is most true ; nor will
anything else of the kind, as the declaration of the Apostle,
** There must be heresies," (1 Cor. xi. 19,) may teach us. There
is but one way of ending controversies, and that it is to be hoped
will evermore be left in the hands of Rome. To end them by
persuading all men of the truth, is a work which One only can
perform, even that onmipotent Spirit who alone can give the

I The rait of faith tnilj ftittd, mi. ISno. Pt iiL pp. MO— S06.

BULB AND nmOS IN ULMION. 4g9

•piriiual discernment necessary to enable qoen rightlj to JBscem
spiritual things. (1 Cor. ii. 14.)

Still further ; we find that the very hearers themselves of our
Lord and his Apostles, who possessed the realihr of this tradition
to which we are referred in all its fulness and purity, propaga-
ted divers errors as part of the Christian faith. If, then, a refe-
rence to the Bible in support of error proves that the Bible does
not plainly state the truth, it follows, by the same reasoning, from
the above fact, that the truth was never plainly delivered at all ;
for the argument is, that when truth is plainly delivered, every
man who hears must receive and embrace it, and cannot, through

! prejudice or any other cause, distort what is delivered to a dif*
erent meaning than the one intended ; which is just the old
Romish argument, that <*men never question things that are
evident ;"* to which Bishop Stillingfleet very justly replies, that
" there may be sujfficient evidence where all men are not per-
suaded by it.'**

Nay, more; this very objection appears to me to support the
view for which we contend. For the fact that Christians are so
divided as to the meaning of the Scriptures, while they all agree
as to the inspiration of the Scriptures, seems at once to point out
the Scriptures as the sole infallible guide. For they who are
so divided in opinion among themselves cannot be our guide ; and
if we are compelled to make a selection from among them, how
can we do it but by the guidance of the inspired volume? There
is no note, independent of doctrine^ by which W3 can ascertain
who are the genuine followers of Christ. With one of our op-
ponents' own most learned witnesses (Bishop Morton), then, we
say, that this is precisely the reason why we must have recourse
to the Scriptures ; '* we cast our eye unto Scripture the pole-
star, especially in so tempesttwus a night oj opposite con^
tentionsy*

The Holy Scriptures have evidences sufficient to convince the
reason of every man that they come from God. Moreover, all
the different sects of Christians agree in this. They disagree as
to the meaning of the Scriptures, and as to the oral teaching of
the Apostles, but they agree in referring to the Scriptures as the
word of God. Here, then, we are on sure ground ; and every
man, conscious that he will have to answer before God as an in-
dividual, has to inquire what the Scriptures reveal to him as the
way of salvation.

Even in civil matters we are bound to a certain extent to ex-
ercise our private judgment as to what is the law of the land.

> L«byrinth. Oantutr. p. 61.
' Rational Accotml, 6m, p. 106.
* Cath. Appei^i ii. 7. § 10 pp. 176, 176.
VOL« !• R R '

470 SCRlPTtnSE THE 80XB INFALLIBLB

Suppose, for instance, a case of disputed succession or such-like
in which the Acts of Parliament relating to the question received
from the judges and men learned in the law diiferent interpreta-
tions. Whatever our qualifications for judging of their meaning
might be, we should be driven to the necessity of exercising our
private judgment upon the meaning of those Acts, unless we
chose to be driven like sheep by one party or another, because
they declared that they were the most numerous, or chose to
assert they were infallible. Now this is a very similar case to
that before us. Our opponents tell us that we must go to a cer-
tain body among professing Christians to tell us what is the mean-
ing of the Word of God, and receive their interpretation as in-
fallible, because that word is interpreted in various ways. It
appears to us that this is the very reason why we should not
take the interpretation of any set of men as infallible^ but are
of necessity compelled, as reasonable creatures responsible to
God, to exercise our private judgment in the matter.

The very objection, then, made against the Scripture as our
rule and judge, because men differ in their interpretation of it, is
the best argument that can be adduced in favour of its being so.
Let us again hear our opponents' witn'^ss, Bishop Stillingneet,
on this point. <* If Christ be the eternal Son of God in oppo-
sition to neathen deities, and we can know him by Scripture to
be 80, then we may as well know him to be the eternal Son of
God in opposition to Arians and Socinians. If against the
heathens we can prove from Scripture that the Word was made
flesh, why will not this as well hold against Nestorians and Euty-
chians? *^nd so the Scripture becomes a very sufficient Rule
to distinguish light and darkness in such points among
Christians too. For is it ever the less fit to be a rule because
both parties own it? ' But they differ about the sense of it, and
therefore controversies can never be ended by it* If Church-
history deceive us not, the greatest controversies were ended by it
before General Councils were heard of, and more than liave been
since. Many of those we read of in the first ages were quite laid
asleep, as Theodbret observes (Haeret. Fab. 1. 2. 3.); but since
Church authority interposed in the most reasonable manner, some
differences have been perpetuated, as appears by the Nestorian
and Ei^tychian controversies. I do not blame the authority of
Councils, proceeding as they then did by the Rule of Scriptures^
but the event showed that the most probable means are some-
times very ineflectual for ending controversies It is pos-
sible to stop men's mouths by force and power, but nothing brings
men to a true satisfaction but inward eoDvictlon as to the true
sense of Scripture, and tfaei*e can be no rational certainty as to
these points without it If controversies be not ended. Jet us not

BULB AKB JUDOB IN BILIGION. 471

blame the wisdom of Prpvidence, for God does not always ap«
poiot the means most effectual in our judgment, but such ds ar6
most suitable to his own design. And we see reason enough to
blame the folly and weakness, the prejudice and partiality, the
wilfulness and obstinacy of mankind, and till human nature be
brought to a better temper, we may despair of seeing any end
to controversies.' . . • . He saith, • Scripture is not our distin*
guishing rule of faith, but our own particular judgments about
Scripture ; for that which distinguishes my rule from that of the
most abominable heresies, can only be my own judgment upon
the letter of Scripture, and wriggle which way I will, there it
will and must end at last.' I wish Mr. S. had been a little bet-
ter conversant in the old disputes about certainty, for it would
have saved me the trouble of answering some impertinent objec-
tions, such as this before us. For they would have been thought
mean logicians who could not put a difference between the rule
of judgment and the judgment which a man made according
to the rule. Suppose the question were about sense, whether
that were a certain rule or not to judge by ; and Epicurus should
affirm it, and say he so firmly believed it that he judged the Sun
to be no bigger than he seemed to his senses ; Would not he have
been thought ridiculous who should have said this fancy of Epi-
curus was his rule T The rule he went by was in itself certain,
but he made a wrong judgment upon it; but that was not his
rule. So it is here, n^e declare the Scripture to be oiir only
certain and standing rule whereby we are to judge in mat-
ters of faith ; and we understand it as well as we can, and
form our judgments by it ; but. doth it hence follow that our judg-
ment is our rule? .... "He objects, * That our people do not
make Scripture the rule of their faith, not one in a million rely-
ing upon it.* .... Havethey, then, any other rule of faith which
they rely upon ? What is it, I pray ? Is it the Church'sk in-
fallibility ? No. Is it Pius the Fourth's creed? No, truly;
* while they are children they believe tradition.' Now, I think,
J. S. hath hit it. Tradition is, indeed^ a rule of faith for
children^ who are very apt simply to believe their fathers and
teachers. But suppose they come to years of discretion, what
rule of faith hive they then ? Have they a judgment of discre-
tion then? .... Whatever he insinuates as to our people, I
have reason to believe /ar better of them ; and that all those
who mind their salvation do seriously read and consider the
Holy Scriptures as the rule of their faith. But if in mat-
ters of opinion or in doubtful or obscure places they make use
of the skill and assistance of their teachers, wherein are they to
blame? The Scripture i> still their rule; but the beilp of
their teachers is for the better understanding it' And (Ubhot

472 8CBIFTUBB THB BOLB HIFALLIBLB

our logician distineuish between the rule of faith and the helps
to understand it? Suppose) now, a mother or a nurse should
quit * honest tradition/ as J. S. here calls it, and' be so ill inclined
as to teach children to spell and read in the New Testament,
and by that means they come by degrees to understand the doctrine
which Christ preached, and the miracles which he wrought, and
from thence to believe in Christ and to obey his commands, I desire
to know into what these persons do resolve their faith. Is it indeed
into those who taught them to read, or into the New Testament as
the ground of their faith, when they have been all along told that
THE ScRiPTURB ALONB IS THR WORD OF GrOD, and whatever
they are to believe^ it is because it is contained therein?
And so by whatever means they come to understand the Scrip*
ture, it is that alone they take for the rule and foundation of

their faith PFe never require them to trust wholly to

our Judgments^ but we give them our best assistance, and
call in the old interpreters of the Church, and we desire them

TO USE their own REASOIf AND JODQMBNT WITH DIVINE ASSISTANCE

for settling their minds * But suppose/ saith Mr. S.,

' that one of my own flock should tell me that I have erred in in-
terpreting Scripture, he desires to know what I would say to
him/ This is a very easy question, and soon answered. I would
endeavour to convince him as well as I could. * And is that all V
And what would J. S. do more ? Would he tell him he was in-
fallible ? I think not ; but only as * honest tradition* makes
him so, and how far that goes towards it I shall examine
afterwards. Well ; but suppose ' John Biddle, against the Min-
ister of his parish and the whole Church of England to boot, un-
derstand Scripture to be plainly against a Trinity and Christ's
divinity. And it is but fair for me to suppose him maintaining
his heresy against J. S., and let any one judge whether of us be
more likely to convince him. He owns the Scripture, and con-
fesses if we can prove our doctrine from thence, he will yield ;
but he laughs at oral tradition, and thinks it a jest for any one to
prove such a doctrine by it. And truly, if it were not for the

f proofs from Scripture, I do much question whether any argument
irom mere tradition co^uld ever confute such a one as John Kddie.
But when we offer such proofs as are acknowledged to be suffi-
cient in themselves, we take the only proper way to ^ive him
reasonable satisfaction. ' Suppose he will not be convinced V
Who can help that ? Christ himself met with wilful and obsti-
nate unbelievers. And was this any disparagement to his doc-
trine? God himself hath never promised to cure those who shut

their eyes against the light I had said many years ago»

'That the Scriptures being owned^ as containing in them the
whoU will qf God so plainly, revealed that no sober inquirer

BUtB A!VP JUDOB IN BBLIOIQK. 473

can miss of what is necessary for salvation^ there can be no
necessity supposed of an infallible society of men, either to attest
or explain these writings among Christians, any more than there
was for some ages before Christ, of such a body of men among
the Jews to attest or explain to them the writings of Moses ana
the Prophets.' And where lies the heresy or danger of this doc-
trine ? If I said that no sober inquirer can nriiss of things neces-
sary to salvation in Scripture, it is no more than SL Chrysostom,
St. Augustine, Aquinas, and other schoolmen had said before me.

.... I shall now sum up my answer in these particulars. 1.
Every Christian as such is bound to inquire after the true way to
salvation, and hath a capacity of judging concerning it 11. Every
Christian, proceeding according to the be^t rules of judging, bath
reason to receive the Scripture as the Rule of his faith* III.

The Scripture is so plain in all necessaries^ and God hath
promised such assistance to them that sincerely seek ity that
none who do so shall want the knowledge of such things as
are necessary to their salvation. IV. When anything is
offered (W necessary to be believed in order to salvation, every
Christian hath a right and liberty of judging whether it can
be proved by the Scripture to be so necessary or not, V. We do
not allow to particular persons the same faculty of judging in doubt*
ful points of controversy which wedo as to matters that immediate-
ly concern their salvation. VI. No pretence of infallibility or au-
thority can take away that right of judging which was al-
lowed them by the Apostles whose authority was infallible*
VII. This right of judging doth not exclude the Church's due
authority as to matters of faith and controversies of religion (as
it is declared Art. 20 of our Church) ; but all that we now plead
for is not any authority as to others, but a right of judging as
to themselves in matters that concern their salvation. Vlll.
The cERTAiNxr op faith as to them depend^ upon two

THINGS ; 1. THE CLRARNRSS OF SCRIPTURE ABOUT THEM WHICH IM-
PLIES THE CERTAINTY OF REASON. 2. THE PROMISE OF DIVINE AS-
SISTANCE WHICH MAKKS THEIR FAITH DIVINE, BOTH AS TO ITS PRINCI-
PLE, ITS GROUND, AND ITS EFFECT . The most Certain

way we now have to know what doctrine the Apostles taught
is by their writings, since they taught and wrote the same
doctrine, and we are certain we have the doctrine they wrote}
but we have no other way to be certain what doctrine thet
TAUGHT . . , . The Scripture being our sole and entirib rule
offaithi all matters necessary to salvation must be supposed tO

be contained therein The point, then, between U9

is, whether the Scripture were left only to the Church to inter*
pret it to the people in ail points, or whether it were intended
for the general good of the whole Church, so as THi^eB^r to di-

R R*

■

474 ficBimms thv solb ikfalliblb

REGT THSMSELTKs ID tbeiF way to HeavcD, and, consequently, whe-
tber it may not be opened and understood by all persons in mat-
ters that are necessary to their salvation They cannot

deny that the Scripture was designed to be a certain and infal-
lible rule of faith to all If a rule be in itself certain^

and be certainly received for a rule, that is surely enough to
make it a rule to a man ; but it is not necessary to the being of
a rule that a man can never deviate froni it by his own fault. —
For there is no intellectual rule can be assigned, but it is pos-
sible for a free agent to deviate from, although he do at the
same time profess it to be his rule. Do not all Christians agree
the commands of Christ to be an infallible rule of life ? And
/. S., by his admirable logic, will either prove this not to be a

rule, or that it is impossible for men to sin Persons may

own the Scripture to be a most certain and infallible rule as to
truth and falsehood, and they are sure, while they effectually
regulate themselves by it, they can never err ; but while they
profess to do it they may. So that all Mr. S.'s subtilty vanishes
into nothing by so plain and easy a distinction. Therefore, I am
still of the mind that a rule of faith is that whereby we arr

TO JUDGE WHAT WE ARE BOUND TO BELIEVE AS TO DIVINE REVELA-
TIONS."*

Thirdly, It is objected that from the variety of opinions main-
tained as to the meaning of Scripture, it follows that if Scrip-
ture is the sole infallible judge, having authority over the con-
sciences of men, the Church would be ihrown into confusion and
disorder.'

Here, again, the objection does not reach the question ; it
shows, at most, only the inconveniences that might result* from
Scripture being the sole judge.

But further, we deny that such inconveniences do result from
it. The objection rests upon the tacit supposition that the Church
cannot justly excommunicate those who deny the fundamentals
of the faith, or maintain fundamental errors, unless it possess in
one way or another some infallible and authoritative judge be-
sides the Scripture to determine with authority the meaning of
Scripture. This sentiment is in terms avowed by Mr. Newman;
yes, and even professedly deduced from an article of our Church,
which, as his own favourite witness Leslie has already informed
bim, means nothing of the kind. << In the 20th article/' he says,
** we are told that the Church has ' authority in controversies of
faith.* • . • But how can she have this authority, unless she be
certainly true in her declarations 7 • • To say the Church has

1 Ditc eoBC. Dttore tnd groondt of oirteinMr ofikiUi, pp. 61 — 80.
> 8m Mr. N«wffl. L«ct 1. p. 34, Ac ; Mid B«llarm. !>• V. D. ill 9.

RVLK AMD JUDOB IN BBUOIOIC. 475

authoritj, and yet is not true [i. e. certainly or infallibly true J
as far as it has authority, were to destroy liberty of conscience ;
which Protestantism, in all its forms, holds especially sacred ; it
were to substitute something besides truth as the sovereign
LORB OF CONSCIENCE, which would be tyranny. If this Protestant
principle is not surrendered in the article, which no one suppo-
ses it to bCy the Chtirch is, to a certain point, there set forth as
the organ or representative of truth; and its teaching is erfew-
tified with it" (pp. 226, 7.) So that the Protestant principle
of private Judgment assumes that " the Church" is " certainly
true" in her declarations; and therefore, as " the organ of truth,"
is " THE sovERBioN LORD OF CONSCIENCE ;" and ** the Church" must
be infallible in her declarations, because otherwise she would
have no right to be (as it is here assumed she is) '< the sovereign
lord of conscience."

Now did it never strike Mr. Newman, that the pastors of the
Church may have a ministerial authority over men, though
they do not thrust themselves into the throne of God, as ** the
sovereign lord of conscience ;" and that, by that ministerial au-
thority, the Church may be preserved pure, and heretics and
ofienders cut off from its communion, quite as well as if they
claimed higher authority, and boasted of themselves as being an
infallible guide 7

And this ministerial authority is possessed, not only by the
pastors of the universal Church, but by those of each distinct por-
tion of it. They to whom the government of any Church is en-
trusted, are bound to preserve it from the infection of fundamen-
tal error, by the administration of discipline ; to cut off obstinate
heretics from its communion ; and, above all things, not to per-
mit those who hold what it deems to be fundamental errors to
minister in it. Hence our Lord says to the Church of Thyatira,
** I have a few things against thee ; because thou sufferest that
woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and
to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things
sacrificed unto idols." (Rev. ii. 20.)

But for this there is no need, either that it should be infallible,
or that it should possess in patristical tradition an infallible guide.
It acts as an assembly of fallible beings, responsible to God for the
support and maintenance of his truth, as far as the moral influ-
ence of its verdict can extend ; and responsible also for that ver-
dict being such as is authorized by the revelation God has given
us. Every faithful Church is a witness for God, and can bear
witness as well and as successfully to the truth, by a plain and
modest assertion of it, as by any presumptuous claim to infalli-
bility. But it must be remembered that every individual is also
responsible to Ood for what he believes; and that God has not

470 SCSXFTUBE THS SOUS INFALLIBLE

left him altogether to the teaching of man, but has given him
certain inspired writings containing a revelation of the truth ; and
that while men are at variance respecting the meaning of those
writings, they all agree that those writings are inspired, and con-
tain that doctrine according to which he is to be judged by Christ
hereafter.

Our opponents argue as if Scripture was addressed merely to
the pastors of the Church to tell them how they are to teach ;
whereas it is addressed to m&nkind at large ; and is a universal
gift, for the use of which all are accountable. Consequently,
however right it may be for a man to use all the helps he can
obtain for ascertaining the meaning of those Scriptures, he is re-
sponsible to God, as one who has possessed in them an infallible
declaration of God^s will, and therefore as one bound not to de-
part from their apparent meaning in vital points ; and to follow
this or that body in such points only as far as they appear to him
to follow the Scriptures. Men have iiot been left to the pastors
of the Church to teach them the faith ; otherwise the case would
be, in some respects, different. God has given them another guide,
and one which ail parties allow to be infallible, viz., the Scrip-
tures ; and one, therefore, which they are responsible for using,
in preference to eveirthing which may be proposed to them
through the medium oi fallible men.

Nor is this exercise of the right of private judgment at all
chargeable with presumption. On the contrary, it is a duty
necessarily imposed upon us by our individual responsibility to
God, and which every man must perform to the best of his
ability ; and for such a performance of it, and such only, is he
responsible. " To expound Scripture," says Dean Sherlock, •* is
to make us understand it, not to impose upon our faith without
understanding ; and therefore this is not so much an act of au-
thority, as of skill and judgment ; any man who can so explain
Scripture to me as to make me understand it, shall gain my as-
sent ; but no authority is sufficient to make me assent unthout
understanding. And yet such a catholic expositor, our authoi*
would set up, whose authority shall make me grant that to be
the sense oj Scripture, which his reasons and arguments can-
not persuade me qf. But all reasonable creatures must under-
stand for themselves; and Christ nowhere commands us to believe
that to be the sense of Scripture, which we cannot understand to
be so. I know no necessity that all Christians should agree in
the interpretation of all difficult texts of Scripture: there is
enough in Scripture plain to carry men to heaven ; and as for
more difficult and obscure texts, they are for the improvement
of those who can understand them, and need no such catholic

BULS Ain> J17DOS IV BBLIGION • 477

expositor ; because it is not necessary that all men should under-
stand them/'*

But such an exercise of the right of private judgment is, ac-
cording to Mr. Newman, an assumption of ivfailibility. ** The
multitude of Protestants," he says, "consider every man his own
judge ; they hold that every man may and must read Scripture
for himself, and judge about its meaning, and make up his mind
for himself; nay is, as regards himself and practically, an infallU
bit judge of Us meaning — infallible certainly ; for, were the
whole new creation against him, Bishops, Doctors, Martyrs, Saints,
the Holy Church Universal, the very companions of the Apostles,
the unanimous suffrage of the most dbtinct times and places, and
the most gifted and holiest men, yet, according to the popular
doctrine, though he was aware of this, he ought ultimately to
rest in his own interpretations of Scripture, and to follow his pri-
vate judgment, however sorry he might be to differ from such au-
thorities/' (pp. 319, 20.)

Now here are a vast number of very big words heaped up,
but to very little purpose. Here are " the whole new creation,**
** the Holy Church Universal," " the unanimous suffrage of the
most distinct times and places, and the most gifled and holiest
men," all shaking their heads at us,- and warning us that it is at
our peril to attach any meaning to what God has said to us in
the Scriptures, other than what they tell us is to be affixed to it.
Such an apparition is, no doubt, very alarming; and some peo-
ple who are frightened by big words, begin to think that it really
would be very presumptuous to differ from such authorities.
And so do I too. But when we come to close quarters with
these spectres, we find them vanish into thin air ; and " the
whole new creation'^ leave nothing behind them to tell us what
meaning they did affix to Scriptures, but the mutilated works of
a few fallible authors of the primitive Church. The right of
private judgment, then, involves no such presumption as Mr.
Newman would here lead us to suppose. And however much
men may misinterpret the Bible, they have in it at least an in-
fallible guide ; and as long as they adhere closely to it, in the
sincere desire to understand it, and with prayer to God to enable
them to do so, will not be suffered by a faithful God to err fun-
damentally; while, as it respects the Fathers, they are at every
step almost liable to be led astray ; for they are met at the very
threshold of their inquiry by a multitude of difficulties, all of
which must be cleared up, before they can proceed satisfactorily.
They must determine the meaning of doubtful passages ; they

1 W. 8heriock'f VindicftUoo of some Protestant Principles, dee. Lond. 1688,
4to. p. 99.

478 SOSIPXXTBB THS tOLB IWALLIBLB

nlust know how many Fathers are sufficient to constitute a safe
guide ; they must ascertain that these are not contradicted by
others, and determine various other points in which they are ex-
posed to innumerable errors, through inexperience and predju-
dice ; while after all, at the best, they get nothing more than a
fallible guide, which cannot relieve them from the duty of ascer-
taining for themselves what God has delivered in the Scriptures.

Moreover, the rights of the Church and the right of private
judgment are by no means incompatible with each other; nor
need any confusion or disorder arise in the Church from the doc-
trine for which we contend. It is necessary for the well-being
of the Church to lay down what it holds to be the doctrines of
Scripture as a protest against the misinterpretations of heretics,
and to expand that confession of faith from time to time accord-
ing as heresies arise, in order to keep her communion as far as
possible pure. And this holds good of a particular Church as
well as of the whole universal Church. And in both cases it is
done on the responsibility of those who do it, and done not as if
the determination was infallible, but as a protest against sup-
posed error, and a safeguard to protect the communion of those
who make it The validity of their sentence against the sup-
posed heretic depends upon whether they are right or not, and
this God alone can infallibly decide; while nevertheless they
roust act as if they were right.

It is from taking this course, I conceive, that our Church has
sometimes been most unjustly accused by her enemies as one that
always disowned infallibility, but always acted as if she were
infallible. Here, as it often happens in such cases, truth has
been sacrificed for the sake of an antithesis, but if the word ri^A/
had been inserted in the latter clause instead of infallible, the
remark would have been perfectly true, and have imputed
nothing blameworthy. For if men were not to act, and act with
energy and vigour, according to what they believed to be true and
right, because they were not infallible, they must cease to act at
all. But there is a vast deal of difference between acting with
energy, according to that which we believe to be right and true,
and claiming infallibility. There is a limit to what we do in the
first case, as the annals of our Church will testify. There is no
limit in the other, as the annals of the Church of Rome will
prove.

" As for that objection against our Church," says Dr. Clagget
and Mr. Hutchinson, " which is of late so much insisted upon bj
some, that notwithstanding the liberty she gives to private Chris-
tians to examine her doctrines by the Scriptures, she yet per-
emptorily requires the profession of that faith which she teaches,
and conmrmity to her rules of worship, there is nothing in it to

BULE AND JUDOK IK KBLIOIOlf. 470

surprise any man but the intolerable vanity of the objections.
For this is so far from being unreasonable, that for the same rea-
son that she does the one she may and ought to do the other;
that isy because she is certain that the conditions of her commu-
nion are justifiable to the whole world, therefore she should
neither fear to insist upon them, nor to provoke all persons to the
examination of them by any proper methods whatsoever. This
objection, however, runs a little cross to the other, that the lib-
erty our Church gives must needs cause disorder and confusion.
For why there must needs be disorder where a Church's faith is
fixed, and a form of worship established, and conformity required,
and no just cause of offence given, I cannot understand, unless it
be because it must needs be that some men will be very unrea-
sonable, and others will be very wicked, after the best care is
taken to direct them in their duty, and oblige them to it. If
they of the Roman Church can tell bow to prevent this infallibly,
it is a secret which they have as yet kept to themselves. For
our own parts, we are altogether ignorant of any way, that shall
make it impossible for men that are endued with freewill to abuse
it, whether by making wrong judgment or a wrong choice. Our
Church hath fixed terms of communion which are truly catho-
lic, and leaves every one to judge for himself whether they be so
or not, a0brding to every one the liberty of using all means that
they can in order to the making a right judgment, and there-
fore qf using the Scriptures, Which are not only the best in
themselves, but which also come within the compass of the
abilities and leisure of all, more or less. We are to use the
liberty of judging for ourselves by these means, under this con-
sideration, that we are to be accountable for it at the day of
judgment .... This is the provision that God hath made for
the maintaining of truth and peace in bis Church ; that go-
vernors cannot abuse their authority in commanding, nor the peo-
ple their liberty of judging whether the command can be obeyed

with a good conscience, but at the peril of their souls

As for those that impute the disorders and schisms of the Church
to the liberty of judging by the Scriptures which we allow, I
would be glad to know what means they are provided with to
ascertain the unity of communion."^

When the pastors of any Church separate one who obstinate-
ly maintains what they deem to be fundamental error from their
communion, they do so not as persons possessing any infallible
guide besides the Scriptures, but in the exercise of the ministe-
rial authority given to them by the Church, and each party is re-

I On the Aathoriij of ConneUt tad the Rule of Faith. In Bp. Gibeon'e Pre-
aerv. vol. L tit. 4. e. S. pp. 170, 171.

480 acnmntB thi wli ihfauibii

spondble to the great Head t^ the Church hIodc for their con-
duct. There is no infallible tribunnl on earth before which he
can be arraigned, and therefore nothing can be justly done be-
yond such an act of eeparati(»i. None have authority over hia
conscience.

The whole matter must be referred to Christ's tribunal at the
day of judgment, and if the pnstors of the Church have been
in error, they will be the peraonn to suffer punishment, and not he
who knowing from the Scriptures, what the real doctrines of the
faith are, and seeing that those pastors were lending him astray,
determined to obey God rather than man.

But with this ministerial authority, and the concession of the
right of private judgment to individuals as to the meaning of
God's word in points upon which their salvation depends, our op-
ponents are altogether dissatisfied. No ; they must either wield
the sceptre of infallibility, or they can do nothing, and every
thine must take its own course, and go to confusion.

The real fact is, that our opponents are carried away, like
many Papists, by the notion that there must be some infallible
guide to be found somewhere to "force" upon men the true
meaning of the Scriptures, because otherwise they see clearly
that profesnng Christiana will always be divided as to its mean-
ing, and that the true Church, whatever it may be, can no more
claim to be considered an infallible witness than those who are
rs of error. If, then, this staggers any one, let me put
, whether this is at all dissonant with God's ordinary
with mankind. Here is a revelation given of the Chris-
h in a fourfold account of our Lord's life and teaching,
e above twenty Epistles written by inspired authors to
Churches, amplifying and explaining that revelation.
e various Churches and individuals among Christians,
holding forth in their public acts and confessions the light of
truth, and bearing witness to the true meaning of Scripture and
the orthodox faith. Is this sufficient or not for the conviction of
men t Is not such a state of things precisely in accordance with
the ordinary course of God's dealings with mankind 7

Sut with this state of things the lovers of Church authority
will not be satisfied. They must wield a power over the con-
sciences of men to bind them to belief in what they deliver, other-
wise they tell as there will be no end of controversies and here-
tical sects. Now is not this the very source of their errors, that.
they expect that there should be in this world an end of contro-
venies and heretical sectsT The Apostles had no such expecta-
tion. They tell us that there must be heresies, that they which
are approved may be made manifesL (1 Cor. xi. IS.) We en-
terlaiD, tiierefore, no such expectation ; and, cmiequenly, when

SULS AKD JUD6K Ilf RELIGION. 481

we are told that if the Bible is the sole authoritative judge of
controversies in religion, there will be do end of controversies
and heretical sects, tor that the Bible cannot force people to be-
lieve the. truth, we reply that this is perfectly true, but no re£i-
^iHiable ground of objection against the view for which we con-
tend, tor this is a trial which the Church of Christ ought to ex-
pect and look for» as the natural consequence of the present
state of things. While human nature remains what it is, there
will be dissentions among men on such points. But this does not
bring confusion into any Church that is watchful in maintaining
her orthodoxy, though it be a trial to whiqh, as a Church mili-
tant, ske is necessarily exposed. And though it would carry me
too far from our present subject to enlarge upon the remark I
am about to make, I would suggest to the reader the inquiry how
far a claim to be considered an infallible guide would be likely
to tend to the purity or the peace of any Church that made it*
Qur opponents seem ready to think, that if <* the Church,** L
e. according to their use of the phrase, the collective body of th^
pastors of the Church, has not anthority over the consciences of
Bien, the ministerial office is useless ; that if an ultimate appeal
to^ the Scriptures . lies open to all men, and men may judge for
themselves from them what is the truth, we may as well leave
tbern^ at least in adult age, to the Scriptures as their alone
teacher. What ! Have we not abundant room for our ministra-
tioQSy in endeavouring to remove prejudices, to lead the mind to
tfains of thought suited to bring it into a state of willingness to
receive the truth, to obviate the effects of man's carelessness and
indi&reni^e to religioO) by laying before him the truths of God's
word, and pointing out to him their true meaning, (which he is
often too indifferent about them to search out,) to study the word
of triUh /or him^ and show him, bv the collation of passages,
what the mind of God is; to remove the objections which his hu-
mour or prejudices niay start ; to point out to him the number^
the qualifications, and the piety of those who in past times have
maintained such views of flivine truth, (I say ihtir piety ^ for
** by ih^vc fruits ye shall know them," not by their Apostolical
succession^ which may be very good, while their doctrine is very
bad;) and lastly, to press all home to the heart by earnest and
aiiectionate exhortations and wariiings; and then, as fallible men,
leave it to the conscience to do its work, and to the final decision
(tf the Supreme Judge to pronounce an f infallible judgment 7
But no ; all this is insufficient, because there are some who will
not thus embrace the truth, and we must have, in one way or
another, some infallible judge upon earthy in order to make
people believe, and wield a power over their consciences which
belongs to the Suprcfike Judge alone. And to create a judge thati

VOL. u 9 8

4B2 BCRiPTCBK fBK lOLB tlTTALLiax

bag some appearance of infallibilitj, a ccrtatn number of big

Qg phrases, such as " the Church," " Ottho-

sent of all Christians from the beginning,"

> mining at all, or ebe cannet be defined

oed the very thing for which this infallible

the fundamental faith,) are thrown toge-

from the compound an idol, to which meo

n as the infallible expounder of God's Will,

; of controversies in religion.

;d (hat if Scripture is the sole infallible

of faith, it follows that men may mlerpret

it as they please, and cannot bebliimed whatever ernn they

may maintain; and that the only fundamental doctrine is the tD-

■piration of the Bible.

Astounding as such an objection b, and obvious as is its iliogiGal
nature it is put forth as something wholly undeniable, and boast-
ed of as a difficulty which nothing can remove. They who main-
tain the view for which we contend, "seem to allow," says Mr.
Newman, "or to be in the way to allow, that (ruth is but mat-
ter of opinion, that that is truth tci each which each thinks te
be truth, provided he sincerely and really thinks it, that the iH'
vinity of the Bible itself is the only thing that need be be-
lieved, and that its meaning varies with the individuals who
receive it, that it has no one meaning to be ascertained as a mut-
ter of fact, but that it mav mean anything, because H is said to
mean so many things ;" and they have adopted " the latkudina-
rian notion that one creed is as good as another." (pp. 35, 6.)
And this " principle of popular Protestantism" " tends by no-very
intricate process to the recognition of Socinlans and Pelagians as
Christians." (p. 291.) I need hardly add, that the objection k
only an echo of a Romish one ;' and a RomSsh one (be it ob«erV>
cd) urged, like the rest, against that very Chureh and thoH
very men whom our opponents profess tofollou) in this mattar.
I feel bound to say, that this appears to me just like the IdU
j-efuge of a disputant driven into a corner, and vexed at finding
that he had not a single loophole of escape left, for any argu-
inent more groundless, any conclusion mort unwarraiited by the

g remises, any statement Containing a more comj^ete libel agaimt
od's word, never was devised 'as the last rfriit of a coDtrover- '
sialist.

Mr. Newman's statements go even b'eydnd the objeetioD, as we
have worded it, and altogether pass the bounds of reasonable
and temperate discussion ; for hh words (as quoted above) cleat-ly
charge us with maintaining that the Scripture really Aa» as

I AoVDDt, dec of Goida in CMilranrsiM, l; IfH. (u abova qotxcd.) '

Mvut AM9 J9IKW JEN wiaatoK* 483

ttamj coewiiigi ae are given to it ;: 8(» tbat io th^ hands of one
person it reaSj/ teaches Trimtarianiginf and in the hands of ano-
ther it really teaches Sociniaoism. There challenge Mr. New^
i»an, as a man qf truth, io point out any authority /or this
^tvUementf such as will Justify him in so making it, or to
acknoiwkdge hi^ inability to do so.

' But to taM the objection in its best form* What does it
amount to? That if every man is to believe only as bis private
judgioent of the meaning of Scripture directs him, he who fol-
lows his private judgipent is not blameworthy, however errone-
ous his faith, may be.

Now here, obviously, the concluision is wholly unwarranted
by th^ premises, for there are many causes tending to mislead
the judgment for which a man is responsible, and blameworthy
if they lead him into error. Such are, in this case, want of at-
tention to the subject,, indifference, worldly-mindedness, preju-
dices, aversion to the truth, negligence of the means of informa-
tion, and of those helps which are suited to aid him in his inqui-
ries into the meaning of God's word. And the true question is
this, whether he who comes to the Scriptures with a sincere de-
sire to know the truth, doing the will of God as far as he knows
it, carefully, earnestly, and impartially endeavouring to ascer-
tain the sense pf Scripture, with prayer to God for his blessing
upon the perusal of it, shall ever fail of obtaining a knowledge
4M its meaning in all fundamental points. All these things are
within the power of every man, and he is blameworthy if he
Delects any of them* We contend that this question can only
be answered in the negative. No man thus coming to the Scrip-
tures shall fail of obtaining a knowledgie of the fundamental
truths revealed in them ; and for the proof of this position we
have their sufficiency (to be proved more fully hereafter) to
teach the faith, the character and promises of God, and the tes-
timony of antiquity to the plainness with which all such points
are delivered therein.

It follows then that eveir man is responsible to God for dedu-
cing the right faith from scripture, and blameworthy if he does
not

The primary false principle in the objection of our opponents
is,^ as throughout, the assumption^ that Scripture is so ambigu-
ous in its delivery of the fundamentals of the faith, tbat if God
has not given us an authoritative interpreter whom we are
bound in conscience to follow, we are not responsible to him
for deducing the right faith, even in essentials, from Scripture,
and not blameworthy if we maintain that it teaches Sociman-
ism, Pelagianism, or anything else. Such is the character which
our opponents a^x to God's word in the Scriptures !

4S4 •CmiPTVIK THS tOI-l IHPAIUBKI

Nsy more, it U broadly intimated (bowerer iDconiiteiitlj wIA
other parts) that if we were left to Scripture elone, SMbiiam
would have a verj good defence to make. For, says Mr. New-
man, "It is urged a^infft them [J. e. by SociniBm agaiost (bote
who hold our views], that, (hough the texts referred to moj/
imply the catholic doctrine, yet they fiKi^ not ; that they are con-
sistent mith any one ou I of several theories." (p. 892.) Now
if (his is justly ui^ed, and in (hat case only rt it worth referrii^
to, whflt becomes of Mr. Newman's remarks about Scripture
proqfioT doctrine 1 And in what does bis view diSer from tboee
« to repudiate, viz., that Scripture is like a nose
I be turned any way? In fact, he has here
e very notion which we have jost seen bim
opponents as an absurdity ; viz., that Scripture
.hing, because it is said (o mean so many things."
" it is added, "that other persons think so:"
tverythine ambiguous that people dispute aboutT
e for an iTluBtration of this point. What is the
:d by a great number of professing Christians,
ins of obtaining happiness in this worM ? Is it
e derived almost solely from earthly sources t
ihem with texts of Scripture bearing upon this
lot their reply ready, explaining away the pas-
heir own notions, and addueirg others in defence
ling, then, to Mr. Newman's mode of reasoning,
the New Testament is altc^ether ambiguous upon this point, and
we need soitie authoritative interpreter to tell us what it means ;
and he who chooses to think that it authorizes his earthly-minded
career, is blameless before God, if there is no such interpreter.
Mr. Newman proceeds, — " It is urged against (hem . . . that
these others have as much right to their opinion as the party
called orthodox to theirs; that human interpreters have no
warrant to force upon them one view in particular ; that pri-
vate judgment must be left unmolested," &c. No; (his cannot
be justly urged against us, for this is what we hold. We do not
/orce upon men one vieiv; we do leave private judgment un-
molested; but these objections are fairly urged against our oppo-
nents, because, when they claim infallibility, they do Jbrce upon
men one view, and grievouslymolest private judgment. We holdt
indeed, that Scripture has a clear and definite meaning in all
necessary pdnts ; and that he who does not hold lU meaning in
such points, is fundamentally wrong ; and therefore that every
Church is bound to keep ils communion pure, by separating from
itself, and passing a sentence of condemnation upon those who, in
its view, nreobslinate heretics; but we hold, also, that there is
no such authoritative infallible judge of controversies of faith on

D nroei nr ssluior. 486

earth, as cbd biad the conscience, to the belief of anj"ineflniog it
ma; affix to the Word of God; even though that meaning be
taken from what is called the " consent of the Fathers."

And having thus libelled the Word of God, and accused it of
being altogether of doubtful meaning, btjcause some persons mis-
represent its meaning, and attacked the ProtestaDt doctrine of
the right of private judgment, be triumphantly concludes, " This
reasoning, grantiog the first step, is resistlesB," and tells uethat,
"though certain individuals are not injured by the principle in
question, [i. e. of the Bible tfeins the sole -aulbcwitative rale of
&itb,] the body of men who protaes it are, and ever must be, in-
jured. For the nass of men, having no moral convictions, are
led by reasoning, and by mere connsl
legitimately evolve heresy from princij
sort of men, mtty be harmless." (pp. 8S
are led by reasoning, and by mere a

LBGITINATELr EVOLTS HBREST ffom adi:

•ole authoritative rule of faith.

May God in his mercy pity and (org
sacred boon he has bestowed upon us it
not vi^it the sin upon our Church, in «
gether the light of that book so little pr
to grope oHr way in the darkness to vi
lain reduce as.

Nor let it be forgotten, that this obj
against the views of our opponents, as i^

contend. For, as we have already shown, patristical tradition
may be, and is, quoted on all sides. - And, as Bithop Stillii^eet
says,— ** Why may not men mistake the settse of tradition, ai well
as the sense of Scripture 1 Is tradition more infallible in itaelft
Is it delivered by persons more infallible T Doth it make those to
whom it is delivered infallible^ Wby, then, amy not those who
deliver it, and those who receive it, both be mistaken about it?"
In the tradition of "Christ's being the Son of God," "the tradi*
tionary words may be kept; and yet an heretical sense may be
contained under them. Mr. 9. answers, ' That the sense of the
words, and all the rest of Christ's doctrine, is conveyed down bf
tradition.' This is bravely said, If it could be made out; and
would presently put an end to all disputes. For if all the doc-
trine of Christ be derived down to us in such a manner that we
cannot mistake the sense of it, we must be all agreed whether we
will or not .... But let as see how be proves that men can-
not mistake the sense of tradition in particular points. The fwce
of what he saith is, ' That men were always men, and ChristiaM
were always Christians ; and Mr. S- is always Mr. S., pretending
demoostratimi, when there is ttotbiog like it If Doen were always

480 SOBIPTVBJI TMS tOLI nCVAlXIBIJI

men, thejinrere always apt to be deceived ; andmleiB CbristiaiMy
by being 8ucb» are iDfaltible, they are liable to mistakei. ^ But
the highest means to convey the sense of words, are to be found
in tradition.' I am quite of another opinion ; / ihink it ihe
most uncertain way in the world; and the corruptions of the
first ages af the world are an evident proof ofit^ when there
were all possible advantages of tradition; and yet the principles
of natural religion were strangely corrupted, although they were
plain, easy, few, of the highest importance, and men lived so long
to inculcate them into the minds ortheir children.". And he then
proceeds to show the vanity of the argument adduced by J. S.,
as by our opponents, that there were actions in the rites and
ordinances of the Church, as well as words, to show the true doc^
trines of Christianity.^

Our opponents, then, may take back their argument, and
answer it as it applies to their own system, and the same answer
will do for us. ^ If it follows from our regarding the Bible as the
sole infallible rule of faith, that we thereby .make the doctrine of
the inspiration of the Bible the only fundamental, and that men
are not blameable, whatever doctrine they deduce from the Bible,
so our opponents- hypothesis makes the doctrine of the inspiration
of the Bible and patristical tradition the only fundamental ; and
men are not blameable, whatever doctrines they may derive
from them } and so half the heretics, ancient and modern, are at
once absolved.

I cannot conclude this chapter, however, without again callijig
the attention of the reader to the extraordinary fact that such
doctrines as we have been considering, should be represented as
the doctrines of the Church of England. Most paintul, indeed, is
it to observe the way in which the name of the Church of Eng-
land has been used in this matter, and her authority quoted ais
supporting doctrines and statements against which, both in her
authorized fornlularies and by her most celebrated divines, she
has been for three centuries protesting, and still more painful to
see how readily, nay eagerly, tl^oae representations are credited
by many, and a few quotations of uncertain meaning received
firi>m the Tract writers in proof of their allegations, when other
parts of the works of the same individuals show how completely
Opposed they were to the doctrines which they are quoted as
9up|>orting. B«it ou^ opponents are wise in supposing that such
names do them iar more service than their own arguments on the
subject; and they have, indeed, as far as my experience goes,
been the chief causes of the impression produced in many quar«>
ters in their favour.

1 Dim.' coBc. aatare and gi^otin^ of berlainty of hith, pp. '4S^ et te^

MULE Ain> Jimaa nr xaucnoir.

4»f

1 have noticed nboye onfy the obeervatioiM of Mr. Newnum
CD this sobjecty but i need hardly obienre, that his remarks are
echoed ia substance by the rest, and equaHy so by that corps of
T<dunteerB> who, though they disclaim any express and direct
union with the writers of the Tracts, are almost always found
on important points Ughtiog side by side with them. One of
these is Dr« Hook, who in the notes to his Visitation Sermon (p.
100) telb us, that they who hold the ndtion of the Bible being
the sole infallible rule of faith, have no right to <* refuse to regard
as a GbristiaA," a Soctnian, i.e. in other words, to pronounce him
to be involved in fundamental error nor. to blame him for Ms
error* No, doubtless, how can be be to blame when he has only
got such an obscure book as the Bible to direct him ? With such
a guide how can he be expected to find the way 1 Nay, more^
*** / believe it^^ says Dr., Hook, " to be only on accottnt qf their
being bad logicians^ that they are not^ Soeinians : I believe
that they ought to t>e, if consistent, both Dissenters and Soeinians.
If they accuse Church principles of tending to Popery, we think
that their opinions must lead logical and unprejudiced minds
to Socinianism*" (p. 59,) So that the Bible whenabne, directly
leads logical minds to Socinianism 7 There is much comfort,
tiowever, in the reflection that it is the logic of our opponents
that does so. But the Soeinians, I am sure, must feel greatly
obliged to Dr. Hook for the remark, for if hundreds arid thou-
sands do not after this join them, it will be no fault of Dr. Hook.

But then ^*we qf the Church of Bnglandy" have got " an
arbiter ta decide*^ for us what the meaning- of Scripture is, in
** the Church*' and '* General Councils," the old high-sounding
phrases and big words by which so many have been-frightenea
into errors of all kinds. ** But for this^" adds Dr. H. << ultra-
Protestants denounce us as papistical, and call our Church the
Church of the TVaditioners.^ (p. 101.) Now if Dr. Hook
would but have given himself time to make himself acquaint-
ed with the facts of the case, he would have found that this nAme
was given for no reason of the kind. When the Puritans Called
the Chureh of England the Church of the Traditoners (See Dr.
H.'s Serm. p. 66), they did so not with reference to her going to
tradition for doctrine^ but because she considered that in mat-
ters of discipline the tradition of the early Church was a suffi-
cient justijieation for her continuing some Usages which had
been observed in the Church in the time of Popery, and which
the Puritans, who demanded Scriptural authority for every
usage^ wished to abolish ; and if Dr. Hook will consult only his
Hooker a little more attentively, he will easily find the truth of
this. But this is just a specimen of the haste and carelessness of
the party^ and but one oif a thousand. They are in such haste

V488 AQUvcnaB tbb sobb

«Dd eageftiett(o€0tablish tbeir potitioo, that thegr caAch at every
«traw »ad broken reed that lies in tbeir way, and vrbeo any
feoiaus divine of our Church has uttered a few words in .commen-
dation of the Fathers and the primitive Church* down they go
as evidence for the truth of their positions, and hb name figures
in their next Catena; utterly unablci or rather unwillingy to
draw the distinction between making the testimony of the Fa-
thers an argument in confinnation of orthodoxy and claiming
ibeir testimony in one's. iavour, which our reformers most justly
•did, and putting it forward under big names and high-soeoding
phrases, as the arbiter of the meaning of. Scripture, authorita-
tively declaring the truth and binding- the conscience to belief
without any appeal, a notion against which our Church has for
three centuries been ati but unanimous.

Dr. Hook's work contains a long extract (pp. 64 &&) from the
^* Treatise on the Church," by the Rev. w. Palmeri another
supporter of the Tractators, who, beginoing with, the complaint
of ^systematic misrepresentation," himself misrepresents most
grievously* *' The various methods which these ooen employt"
be says, ** in endeavouring to prevent aitt appeal to the tradi-
tion oif the Church," &c, as if it was denied that ^ any appeal"
might be made to it in the way of argument, when dissenters
themselves have often made it So again under the head of
*^ statements directly untrue," it is he himself who is. guilty,
«< Under this bead," he says, v may be included the palmary ar-
gument employed by all sects against art appeal to the tradition
of the Church Universal, namely, that it was the principle of the

lieibrmation to reject any such appeal Nothing can be

aM>re untrue than this assertion: the Reformation -as a whole
acknowledged and appealed to the authority of catholic tradi-
tion^ t4»ough it deniec| the ir^alUbilily of particular Fathers
and Councils." Now, in the first place,. *' nothing can be more
yntrue" than that this assertion is so made, and on the other hand,
nothing more untrue than that the Reformers appealed to the
authority of catholic tradition in that sense of the word autbo*
rity in which, the last part of the sentence and the general ar-
gument «how that it is here used, viz., as absolute and binding,
and as if such tradition was infallible. There is a middle path,
the true path of our Church, which Mr* Palmer, like the Tract
writers, refuses to see^an appeal to the, tradition of the Fathers
as. a good urgument as iar as it goes, but not as one in itself bind^
ing upon the conscience. He proceeds to tell^us, that >' in as-
serting this Mberty to alt men, [t. e. the liberty of judging after
'the due use of means what is the meaning of Scripture, for as
to the words^'' in opposition to- the belief of all Christians from
the beginoing," they are mere moonshine, because no one can

mULC Am> JVbOB lit BBLIdtOK. 4S9

tell us what ttmt belief has been, nor for one in ten thoosand, as
Mr. P. very well knows,! it followi inevitably that no parti-
tular interpretation of Scripture ii necessary to salvation j
that Scripture has no divine meanings that it is not a revela^
tion.^ Most logically argued ! God has commisrioned various
persons to ^R^te several accounts of the GbBpeli and he has
given me reason suflScient to understand it« But if I say that I
am at liberty to judge what those accounts mean, 'Mt follows in-
^vitabfy^' that those accounts have no divine meaning," thait they
are ** notf a revelation," and' that I may understand them to mean
anything that my humour leads me to fancy. Such svperficiat
and illogical views destroy the value of any learning' with which
they may be connected. For learning is then only valuable wheft
united with correct and impartial reasoning.

The fact is, that this whole argument, with its ini^ioiis refe*
rence to Socinianism in order to raise a prejudice in the mind, is
oiHj another weapon drawn from the Romish armoury. It was*
long a^ urged by the celebrated R. H., (t. e. Abraham Wood-
bead,) in the 4th Discourse of his "Guide in Controversies,*
where he represents the Socinian's Plea as being precisely that
of the Protestant ; and which was fully and ably answered by
Dr. Tenison, ailerwards Archbishop of Canterbury, in his "Dit
ferehce betwixt the Protestant and Sociniah methods," a tract
which I would strongly recommend to the serious pemsa> of our
opponents, as one which very clearly lays down the principles of
the Church of England in this point, and gives to the Fathers as
well as to Scripture their proper place and respect. To quote
from this work what is relevant t6 our present subject, would be
to give the whole, but I ctannot refrain from offering one or two
extracts. *<If men," says the Archbishop, ** who plead Scrip-
ture as their rule of faith, make apolc^y by so doing for all others
who pretend to the same rule, then Catholic Councils themselves
plead for Socinians. For to give an example, the General Coun*-
cil of Chalcedon, and after it Evagrius, testifies, that the intent
of the Second Council was to make it appear by scripture tks-
TiMONT, that such as Macedonius erred in that opinion which they
had advanced against the lordship of the Holy Ghost." (p. 35.)
'* I conclude that notwithstanding the Protestants and Socinians
do both of them plead Scripture as the rule of faith, yet because
Protestants plead the rule rightly in the point of this divinity of
the Son of (Jod, and the Socinians very falsely, evert in the opt-
nion of the Arians and Romanists themselves, the plea of the for-
mer does not justify the plea of the latter For the trial

of the plea, we must come to the dint of argument, and
truth is great and will in time prevail,*^ (p; 37.)

He then proceeds to give the main argument of his antagonist

4i0 sqRfrnDtti wa tou iiirAi«(BLs

iDordsrtaitarefutatiQBy&nd be Uhis states it:— >>^Botb Protet*
tantB and SociniaDs pl^ad Scripture as the soie rule of faith.
fiotb say the Scripture is svjBUcientig clear. Botb say it is clear
in the doctrine ^ the nature of the Son cf God. Tbe Socin-
ian professetbiiiinself to be as industrious in findiog out tbe sense
of the Scripture as tbe Protestant and be is as well assured in bis
persuasiofri tberefore the Protestant in this plea justifies the So-
cinian, the latter saying the same thing for himself that the for-
mer does.'^ (p. 38.) Wiords could not have been chosen more
accurately representing the argument of our opponents. This,
be it remembered, is a Romanist's charge against the Church of
England. How does tbe Archbishop meet it 7 Does he tell him
that this is not the ground taken by the Church of England?
PreciBely the contrary. He tells him,, *' Though they pretend to
tbe same rule, they walk not alike by lU One follows it^ the
other wrests it. Jind this ought not to be turned to the pre-
judice of him who is. true to his rule, Lbt both opinions bs

BaOOGBT TO IT, AND THBN IT WILL APPEAR WHICH IS STRAIGHT AND

WHICH IS oaoOKBix .. • Though tbe Socinians do pretend that tbe
writings of St John are to them as clear as to any Protestant,
and that (bey cannot difcern in them the divinity of Christ, yet
Goofiden^e in saying a thing is* not clear, is not an argument that
it is not. .... Men will say doctrines are obscure even when
tbej are secretly convinced of their evidence*- • ^ • • My adver-
sary here (says a learned and good man) < seems to object as else-
where, that some who seem to follow the letter of the Scriptures
deny this [that is, the divinity of Jesus Christ,] as do the Soci-
iiiaii& What then ? This is not for want of evidence in Scrip-
ture, but from making or devising ways to avoid this evidence.
WiU this author say* that there was no evidence of there being
angels and spirits amongst the Jews, because the Sadducees, who
bad opportunity of bbserving all such evidence, believed neither
angel nor spirit ? And will he say, that there was no clear evi-
dence from tbe word of Christ and his miracles that they were
from God, becaui^ the Pharisees and other unbelieving Jews who
conversed w4U) him, and saw his miracles, and heard hm word,
did not acknowledge him for God V I suppose not." (pp« 38-^40.)
. '* Let a Romanist consider of the qualifications of a Protestant
and a Socinian by the effect of their labours in matters qf
Christian faithf and if lie be not blinded with very gross parti-
AUty.be will acknowledge a di&rence. The Protestant ^nd!9 in
the Scripture tbe divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost, and tbe
merit of Christ's sacrifice ; (the Socinian pretends the contrary. If
the Protestant and Socinian were equally disposed^ bow comes
the one to interpret as a cathoUc, the other as a heretic; T J3nd
how can a Romanist believe that God gives an equal blessing

'StJI.9 AMD J9D«B IK BBUMO^ir. 401

ioiheinduftty. of the Protestants and Socinians^ whilst the
latter do fiot so much 'OS pray for grace to the Spirit of God^
nor apply themselves to God the Father through the meri-
torious sacrifice qf hie blessed Son, nor to Christ himse(f
as Octd, but as to the highest of creatures?'^ (p. 43,) « W«
have no need of confuting Ariansand Sociniaos bj Cburcb^aa*
thoritj, seeitig we can do it mors SFTEOTirALLT cor or tub acaip-
TURES; and if tbej say that the Scripkires are on tbeir ndc;
their saying so dees not alter the nature of truth. And the Ro-
manists allow that they say not true* and they nay be €Of\futed
when they ate not silenced. Protestants decline not a, disputa-
tion with Socinians by the rule of primitive Churcb-autliority.
But if they undervalue this rule, it is discretion in Protestants to
debate the matter with them in a way which they themselves
best Hke of, seeti^ that is also ▲ more cbrtaih as wjbll as a
voRE SPKftDT WAT TO vicTORT." (p. 47.) '*.Thougli the Chttrcl^
of England does not make the Councik her rule of faith, or make
her last appeal to them ; yet she believes that in times of con*
troversy, when the beads of men are apt to be dbturbed even in
matters otherwise plain enough, by the heats and distempers of
the age they liVe in, they are of special ufe. The authority of
them tends to the quelline of the party; and tben when the fac*
tion coqIs, it tends to the fixing and- Airther strengtheniag of the
weak and interrupted faith of many. For as in a bakiQce, one
scale may descend more- or less below the level, so there may be
faith and assent without adding the weight qf Fathers and
Councils ; and yet in unquiet times especial^, apd disputing
ages, such teBtimonienmzf give some futther strength to minds
made feeble, either by public distractions,^ or the private attacks
of crafty seducers. Thus our Church gives to theScripture the
things that bekmg to the Scripture, and to traditfon tJie dues
of tradition. And it gives more even to the former than gene^
rally Socinians do, and more also to the latter though with just
caution and subordination.'' (p. 33*)

The same argument was urged by the Romanists a^^inat our
opponents' own witness, Bishop Stttlingfleet, aad is treated by him
with ridicule. The Church of England and the'Socinians, objec-
ted J. S., ^ both take the same way of Scrtpture's letter io4erpre«-
table by private judgment, and yet differ in these fundameiiial
points.*' '< And what follows ?" replies the Bishop. . «« That the
Scripture is no certain rule? By no meansi But that the So*
cinians may err, and certainly do in - misiilterpreting this r«le.
* But how can it be a certain rule, if men that use it «ay,err ia
'using it V* How can-reason be certain in MiytiHag if • men ibllow«>
ing reason may mistake ? How can arithmetic be a certain way
of cotfiptttatito if men foUowiog the riileSiOf.aritbmeiio may

49t 80BtFT0«B na tOUE IKFALUBUB

misUke in catting up a sum? Dotb any tnan question the cer-
tainty of the rule for men's blundering in their accounts ? Yet
tbis is his way of reasoning. And I will put it just with his propo-
sitionsw i. Arithmetic prescribes a certain way by addition and
^btraction for us to find out any sum. it Therefore it must be
such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the exact sum.
iii But two men who have made use of the same way differ at
least a hundred in casting up the sum. iv. Therefore^ arithmetic
doth not prescribe a certain way to attain at a certain sum.
V. Therefore, they who take only that way cannot by it arrive
at the certain sum. Is not this clear and evident demonstration ?
But those who consider a little better than Mr. S. hajtb done* will
distinguish between the rule and the application of it. The rule
of arithmetic may be nevertheless certain, although those who
want skill or care and diligence may mistake in castipg up a
particular account. The same we say here. Scripture is a
eeriain Bulein M fundamental point 8 to such as have capaci-
ty and use due care and ditfeeace in finding them. But we do
not deny but men throogh prejudice, weakness, want. of attention,
authority of fake teachers, impatience of thoroughly examining
things, and not using proper helps, may run intogroas errors, such
as these about the Trinity and Incarnation ; but still tb^ Ruljb
is certain to those who use it aright, although it be very possible
for men through tbetr own faults \o mistake about it And this
Is no way disagreeing to the infinite wisdom of Grod, whq deal3
with ns as with ratiooal creatures, and hath put faculties into us
that we niright use them in order to the certainty of our faith.
And such moral quaiificatiom Sire required in the New Testa-
ment in order to t^e discerning the doctrine of it, as humility of
mind, purity of heart* prayer to God, sincere endeavour to dp
the will of God ; that it would be very repugnant to the design
of it to suppose that the letter of Scripture alone would give a
man imttiedsite^nd certain directions in all matters of doctrine
being applied to it."'

Such is the testimony of one who is continually put forward
by oar opponents as an advocate of their views.

And as they are fond of the authority of great names, and of
boasting that their system is the true doctrine of the English
Church, I shall conclude this chapter with an extract from a work
of our learned Henry Wharton, (one of the divines of the
** Jlms^to Catholic Library i*^) quoted in a precedin(; page.

*^ If in any part of the Christian religion an undoubted certain-
ty and most firm assurance may justly be required: if a
scrupukuM examkmtioo and curious inquiry may ever be allowed

I Diss, eonc niteft md giMads of ctmisty sf iMirf|i> 39, 44^, .

RULE AND JUDOB IN RSLI9I0N. 483

in matters of religioD ; certainly, an exact knowledge of the Buie
of faith will deserve, as our first, so our chief consideration. For
since the articles of Christianity are not in themselves self-evident,
nor can be found out by the sole principles of reason ; since all
revealed religions are nb further credible than as they can demon-
strate their revelation to have been true and real, some rule was
necessary which might propose to mankind those articles of faith
which reason could not suggest, and propose them also with such
evidence as that the denial of assent snould in all become irration-
al. What this determinate rule is, hath been the great contro-
versy of this and all preceding ages. However, all parties agree
in affixing some certain properties to it, whereby it may be dis-
tinguished ; and, indeed, without which it can never supply the
office or serve the ends of a true rule. These may be reduced
to four heads, that it be able safely and inviolably to convey
down all revealed necessary truths ; that it be fitted to pro-
pose them clearly and invariably to all mankind ; that it be
independent on all other revealed articles ; and lastly, that
it be assigned as a rule by God, the author of all revealed
religion. If either of the two first conditions be deficient, the
rule will be unuseful ; if either of the latter, uncertain and with-
out authority.

ThB SCRIPTURB enjoys all these properties in so EMINENT A
MANNER, THAT NO REASONABLE DOUBT CAN BE MADE OF THE TRUTH

OF IT. For if we consider that whatsoever is revealed may be
pronounced ; whatsoever is pronounced may be written down ;
and whatsoever is committed to writing may be preserved safe,
while those writings are preserved unaltered ; we must conclude
that any revealed religion may be entirely and without danger
of mistake proposed from written books to the universal beliif
of mankind^ since these will afford a standing rule, both to
pastors of teaching their people, and to tl^e people of examin-
ing the doctrine of their pastors in case cf dissidence. The
independence of Scripture from all other revealed articles, is no
less evident. For that these books were indeed written by those
persons whose names they bear, and these persons highly credi-
ble, is known by the same evidences whereby the authors and
credibility of any other books are known ; I mean by the con-
current testimony and consent of all succeeding ages, considered
not as a collection qf men professing the Christian faith, but
as persons devoid neither of common sense nor integrity, as they
must have been, if they had mistaken themselves, or deluded us,
in believing and then testifying a matter of fact so easy to be
known, and more easy to be remembered. Being thus assured
of the credibility of Scripture, that it was written by such his-
torians, who really either performed or saw those miracles which

VOL* I« XT

4M tCRITTUIKB TBM SOUS IWAVhlKLR BULB, &C.

tbey do attteat, we cannot bat believe these miracles ; and, con-
sequently, that the authors and founders of the Christian religion
acted by a divine commission, and may reasonably command our
assent to their revelations. Being thus assured of the divine
authority of the Scriptures, vtt may probably conclude from the
nature and end of themj but most certainly from their own
TESTIMONY, that they contain all things necessary to salvation,
and are the oi^ly rule of faith ; and all this although we did
not yet believe any other article of the Christian religion.^^^

I Preface to *< A TreatUe proving Scripture to be the Rule of faith, &c Lond.
1688." 4to.

THE END or VOL. I.

i

•J

J-

t- t . •*

• .In

* * "4 .

*

fj

\

r
. I

•

■" ^ J

f

I*

>

.^ )'

< ■

I

< ' .

V

■- n:

L

I , ■

'i«i